[Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]
Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for free art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your recommendations for such licenses be? The BSD or Artistic licenses look fine for the latter case, but how about the former? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom ---BeginMessage--- Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 15 avril 2006 à 13:16 +0100, Thomas Wood a écrit : Personally, I think it's understandable that artists may choose not to distribute their work under the (L)GPL, which is primarily a license for software. As long as the license they choose upholds the values of Free Software, I don't see it as a problem. However, I know there have been various lengthy discussions elsewhere about the status of the Creative Commons licenses, so I would like to have some advice before continuing. I think I would ask those people to wait for the 3.0 version of the Creative Commons licenses, which promise to solve a number of small issues[1] that were raised with 2.0 and which are still present in 2.5. Do you happen to know if there is any time scale for 3.0? I'd really like to get started on revamping gnome-themes, but I can't do it unless I can distribute the themes under a more appropriate license. If it's likely that a 3.0 CC license is not going to be available before 2.16, are there any other licenses that might be suitable to meet the needs of artists and distributors such as Debian? -Thomas ---End Message---
Re: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To summarize, I think that, if those documents are actually modified in MS Word Doc format by their actual maintainers, then their source code is really in MS Word Doc format. I agree. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
licensing of debian/ files
When discussing a package with my sponsor, I thought about a licensing issue that has never occurred to me before. Debian packages are very careful to mention the license(s) and copyright(s) of the files in the upstream distribution, but where are the license conditions of files that the packager has added? The manual page (if added by the packager) usually gives something license-like in the author section, but what about the other stuff? Panu -- personal contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED], +35841 5323835 technical contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.iki.fi/atehwa/ PGP fingerprint:0EA5 9D33 6590 FFD4 921C 5A5F BE85 08F1 3169 70EC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to be pulled from the repository? Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. Sorry for the extra work. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: licensing of debian/ files
On Thursday 27 April 2006 05:41, Panu Kalliokoski wrote: When discussing a package with my sponsor, I thought about a licensing issue that has never occurred to me before. Debian packages are very careful to mention the license(s) and copyright(s) of the files in the upstream distribution, but where are the license conditions of files that the packager has added? The manual page (if added by the packager) usually gives something license-like in the author section, but what about the other stuff? The first rule of debian/ directory licensing is, we don't talk about debian/ directory licensing. ... =) Seriously though, I think this is something we as maintainers should be more clear about. I know in my packaging I always *intend* that my packaging falls under the same license as the code I'm packaging. But maybe it would be good to add this more specifically into the debian/copyright file: Original software, Copyright 200x Upstream Author Upstream license text + +Debian packaging, Copyright 200x Package Maintainer + Packaging license text What do other folks think? -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpYXdWlfCbh1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: licensing of debian/ files
Wesley J. Landaker writes: On Thursday 27 April 2006 05:41, Panu Kalliokoski wrote: When discussing a package with my sponsor, I thought about a licensing issue that has never occurred to me before. Debian packages are very careful to mention the license(s) and copyright(s) of the files in the upstream distribution, but where are the license conditions of files that the packager has added? The manual page (if added by the packager) usually gives something license-like in the author section, but what about the other stuff? The first rule of debian/ directory licensing is, we don't talk about debian/ directory licensing. ... =) Seriously though, I think this is something we as maintainers should be more clear about. I know in my packaging I always *intend* that my packaging falls under the same license as the code I'm packaging. But maybe it would be good to add this more specifically into the debian/copyright file: Original software, Copyright 200x Upstream Author Upstream license text + +Debian packaging, Copyright 200x Package Maintainer + Packaging license text What do other folks think? Many packages already have notices to that effect. Partial results from a quick grep: xutils and a lot of other XSF packages, openssh, openoffice.org packages, and mailcrypt. It's probably worth a best practices entry in developers-reference. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages containing RFCs
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large, and better than I would expect. Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better way to handle this? What severity should I use? I think you should file bug reports, but I think you should ask a wider or higher audience (maybe -devel or -release) before mass-filing. Most of those bugs look serious (debian-policy s2.1+2.2) to me. I can't remember if anyone is coordinating [NONFREE-DOC] bugs. There's already been bugs filed about this in the past.. I'm not sure where they ended up but, fe: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810 That package seem to be in non-free now... I'm arguing the same for RFCs in other packages too. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages containing RFCs
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:30AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: Hi all! I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860. Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large, and better than I would expect. Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better way to handle this? What severity should I use? Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC are (I believe) in the public domain. I *swear* that one of the project documents said something highly relevant, to the effect of nonfree material might be included in a package in `main' if it is well-separated, and not required for the operation of the package. I can't find it, so I'd appreciate it if someone would point it out to me .. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that it made explicit mention of RFCs and some humour files included with emacs. I think the humour files in emacs (that doesn't have a clear and free license) are being removed, so perhaps that text has gone away. Anyway, if someone knows about that text, it would be quite interesting to see where it was written and why (if at all) it has been changed. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages containing RFCs
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I *swear* that one of the project documents said something highly relevant, to the effect of nonfree material might be included in a package in `main' if it is well-separated, and not required for the operation of the package. I can't find it, so I'd appreciate it if someone would point it out to me .. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that it made explicit mention of RFCs and some humour files included with emacs. I think the humour files in emacs (that doesn't have a clear and free license) are being removed, so perhaps that text has gone away. Anyway, if someone knows about that text, it would be quite interesting to see where it was written and why (if at all) it has been changed. Could it be that what Justin is looking for is actually a statement that: Packages that contain *contrib* material which is well-separated and not required for the operation of the package can go into main? That one is true, I'm sure, although I can't give you a reference, either. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Packages containing RFCs
* Simon Josefsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810 That package seem to be in non-free now... I'm arguing the same for RFCs in other packages too. The bug is against libnss-ldap, which is certainly not in non-free. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for free art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your recommendations for such licenses be? The BSD or Artistic licenses look fine for the latter case, but how about the former? I'd actually suggest the MIT license instead of the 1,2,4 clause BSD, and would question why people haev a problem with the GPL; there's really no reason not to distribute a copyleft work under the GPL if you actually want the freedom protection that a copyleft license gives. Basically, if the source code terms of the GPL cannot be satisfied, Debian won't distribute it either, because the work does not have source. Don Armstrong -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to be pulled from the repository? Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free categorization are necessary here. GPL requires the preferred form for modification, which for most people working on derivative works would probably *not* be the Word docs? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question about translating and editing gpl document.
First, apologies if these questions doesn't belong on this list. I'm wondering if you can answer the question belonging to this story: I write a big document, license it under GPL. The document contains several chapters about installing and using version 1.3 of some program, let's call it Cleanup. I title this document Using and installing version 1.3 of Cleanup Recently version 2.0 of this program was released. Now, someone has translated this document, and translate the title to Using and installing version 2.0 of Cleanup Upon asking the translator how he managed the transition from 1.3 to 2.0 in the title, he says he removed the chapters that wasn't relevant to version 2.0 of Cleanup, therefor he could call it Using and installing version 2.0 of Cleanup. The translator makes no mentioning of the fact that the document isn't merely translated, but also heavily edited, and nothing like the original anymore. Is this in violation of the gpl? Is he allowed to remove chapters and misleadingly change the title? All without and against my concensus. John -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: Question about translating and editing gpl document.
First and foremost, none of this is legal advice; if you want legal advice contact and retain your own attorney. On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, john skofot wrote: The translator makes no mentioning of the fact that the document isn't merely translated, but also heavily edited, and nothing like the original anymore. So long as the translator has: a) [,,.] cause[d] the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that [they] changed the files and the date of any change They're not in violation of the GPL. See §2 of the GPL.[1] Don Armstrong 1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html -- It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is smoking. -- Andrew Suffield in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: [Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:44:01 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for free art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your recommendations for such licenses be? The BSD or Artistic licenses look fine for the latter case, but how about the former? I'd actually suggest the MIT license instead of the 1,2,4 clause BSD, and would question why people haev a problem with the GPL; there's really no reason not to distribute a copyleft work under the GPL if you actually want the freedom protection that a copyleft license gives. Fully agreed. Actually, the two licenses you suggest are my favorite recommendations too: * the Expat (a.k.a. MIT) license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt * the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgprusPikAryK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages containing RFCs
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote: Hi all! Hi! I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860. Good, I tagged your bug nonfree-doc rfc as user debian-release@lists.debian.org, as kindly requested on http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large, and better than I would expect. Thanks for digging further into this issue! Your job is really appreciated. Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better way to handle this? What severity should I use? I think that bug reports should be filed against the relevant packages. The right severity is: serious. Please raise the severity of #364860, likewise. Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC are (I believe) in the public domain. Public domain RFCs (if there are any) can be identified by looking at them. They must carry an appropriate notice to state that they are public domain or else be knowingly published with no copyright notice in a jurisdiction where, and at a time when, no copyright notice used to mean public domain[1]. Better be sure that something is public domain, before saying that everything is fine, IMHO. [1] IIRC, the United Stated used to be such a jurisdiction until they signed the Berne Convention (in 1988); I don't know for other jurisdictions... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpEBIutYUpV9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tremulous packages
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:22:22 +0200 Heretik wrote: Hi list, Hi! I ITP Tremulous for Debian (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have some license concerns. I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous, tremulous-data and tremulous-server Here are the licenses : - The main code is GPL : no problem OK. - The datas are CC-share-alike : non-free. They intend to relicense them to CC 2.5+ then CC 3 when it will be out though, which will make them debian-free. Not so fast! Creative Commons 3.0 licenses are *not* yet released, so we cannot know whether they will be suitable to publish software in a DFSG-free manner. We will only learn this once they are out. I strongly recommend trying hard and persuading upstream to relicense in a DFSG-free manner now, rather than deferring the issue to yet unspecified timeframes. Since upstream seems to like a copyleft license for data too, they could adopt the GNU GPL v2 license for data, as well as for the game engine. This would instantly solve the issue. - There is a not-free-at-all media license exception, but the author agreed to change the license to CC as the other medias. He wrote an email to the Tremulous maintainer for this, so I think it's ok to say it's CC right now. The new relicensing is not included in my source archive, but as he gave his agreement, I think I can just remove this exception from the license file in my archive. If you have an e-mail message stating that something is to be considered relicensed, you should ideally include that message in the package debian/copyright, near the 'obsolete' license statement, in order to document the license change. However, as I stated above: relicensing under a Creative Commons license is not enough to allow something to enter main. - There are some tools needed to compile some of the sources. Here is their license : The authors of this software are Christopher W. Fraser and David R. Hanson. Copyright (c) 1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998 by ATT, Christopher W. Fraser, and David R. Hanson. All Rights Reserved. [...] - Chris Fraser / [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Hanson / [EMAIL PROTECTED] $Revision: 145 $ $Date: 2001-10-17 16:53:10 -0500 (Wed, 17 Oct 2001) $ The parts about not being able to sell it are non-free, I think. The license you quoted is definitely non-free, because of the many restrictions it contains: it fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#3, I would say. You should try contacting the copyright holders (ATT, Christopher W. Fraser, and David R. Hanson) and persuading them to relicense lcc in a DFSG-free manner. If you fail in doing so, you should try to find a DFSG-free replacement for lcc. I don't intend to package them, but i have to include them in the source package. The Makefile, called by the rules file, builds them and then uses them to build the game. As they don't appear in the binary package, I don't know if it makes the whole non-free of not. If those tools are need to build your package and cannot be in main, then your package cannot be in main either, because it Build-Depends on something that is not in main. Your package would go in contrib (ignoring for a moment the Creative Commons problem) and the tools in non-free. Or else, if you suppress the Build-Depends by putting the tools is the source package, you have a non-free source, and thus the package cannot enter main. In that case your package would go in non-free. As I said above, the best solutions are a lcc relicensing or finding a DFSG-free replacement. As I have a single source package, and the datas are it in, is it right to put the other packages in contrib (if the tools consideration permits it) or do I have to make a separate source package for the datas (and for the tools maybe) ? AFAIK, a source package distributed in contrib can only generate binary packages for contrib. Likewise for main and non-free. You cannot cross the archive boundaries and have a non-free binary package compiled from a contrib source or things like that. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgprKcWvBo2cU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tremulous packages
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:29:37 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: - The datas are CC-share-alike : non-free. They intend to relicense them to CC 2.5+ then CC 3 when it will be out though, which will make them debian-free. - There is a not-free-at-all media license exception, but the author agreed to change the license to CC as the other medias. He wrote an email to the Tremulous maintainer for this, so I think it's ok to say it's CC right now. The new relicensing is not included in my source archive, but as he gave his agreement, I think I can just remove this exception from the license file in my archive. A simple clarification from the copyright holders that they will not be enforcing any of the problematic clauses, along with the promise to upgrade to the newer versions of CC when possible should qualify them as free. (We let Mozilla get away with this durring the tre-licencing). So simply get the clarification. I don't see any similarities with the Mozilla case: Mozilla has been going through a slow and difficult relicensing process from a non-free status to a DFSG-free one. Debian waited until the process ended. What you're proposing here is instead, additional permissions to fix the issues with the used license and a promise to upgrade the license when a future DFSG-free version is out. Firstoff, we cannot be sure that such a DFSG-free version of a Creative Commons license will ever be released (we can hope so, but that's entirely different from being sure!). Anyway, if upstream adds extra-license permissions to fix the license non-freeness, then we can accept the work as DFSG-free. This would be a highly suboptimal solution, though. It would be far better to adopt a clearly DFSG-free license (same hassle, far better result). -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpRTvF3W5mZo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This seems to be a problem only because the GPL is used... Would the files be under a less restrictive licence we would be perfectly OK distributing them as is... Sort of. Debian requires source for everything that it distributes in main. If it were not GPL'd, it would still have to go into non-free. Agreed. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp9jEIADshFv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to be pulled from the repository? Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free categorization are necessary here. GPL requires the preferred form for modification, which for most people working on derivative works would probably *not* be the Word docs? As I understand it, preferred form for modification means the preferred form by a person who made modifications (in other words, upstream), not the preferred form of those who would like to make modifications (in other words, downstream). In any case, I'd sooner edit a Word document (using OO.o, Abiword, or similar) than the HTML that Word outputs. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Free Art License [was: Re: [Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]]
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that is DFSG-free. Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License [ Copyleft Attitude ] version 1.2 Preamble : With this Free Art License, you are authorised to copy, distribute and freely transform the work of art while respecting the rights of the originator. Far from ignoring the author's rights, this license recognises them and protects them. It reformulates their principle while making it possible for the public to make creative use of the works of art. Whereas current literary and artistic property rights result in restriction of the public's access to works of art, the goal of the Free Art License is to encourage such access. The intention is to make work accessible and to authorise the use of its resources by the greatest number of people: to use it in order to increase its use, to create new conditions for creation in order to multiply the possibilities of creation, while respecting the originators in according them recognition and defending their moral rights. In fact, with the arrival of the digital age, the invention of the Internet and free software, a new approach to creation and production has made its appearance. It also encourages a continuation of the process of experimentation undertaken by many contemporary artists. Knowledge and creativity are resources which, to be true to themselves, must remain free, i.e. remain a fundamental search which is not directly related to a concrete application. Creating means discovering the unknown, means inventing a reality without any heed to realism. Thus, the object(ive) of art is not equivalent to the finished and defined art object. This is the basic aim of this Free Art License: to promote and protect artistic practice freed from the rules of the market economy. --- DEFINITIONS - The work of art : A communal work which includes the initial artwork as well as all subsequent contributions (subsequent originals and copies). It is created at the initiative of the original artist who, by this license, defines the conditions according to which the contributions are made. - The original work of art : This is the artwork created by the initiator of the communal work, of which copies will be modified by whosoever wishes. - Subsequent works : These are the additions put forward by the artists who contribute to the formation of the work by taking advantage of the right to reproduction, distribution and modification that this license confers on them. - The Original (the work's source or resource) : A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. - Copy : Any reproduction of an original as defined by this license. - The author or the artist of the original work of art: This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the ramifications of this modified work of art. By this license, the author determines the conditions under which these modifications are made. - Contributor: Any person who contributes to the creation of the work of art. He is the author or the artist of an original art object resulting from the modification of a copy of the initial artwork or the modification of a copy of a subsequent work of art. --- 1. AIMS The aim of this license is to define the conditions according to which you can use this work freely. 2. EXTENT OF THE USAGE This work of art is subject to copyright, and the author, by this license, specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute and modify it. 2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR OF REPRODUCTION) You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION) You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found, - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies. 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of the modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to modify the original under the same conditions as
Re: Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to be pulled from the repository? Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free categorization are necessary here. GPL requires the preferred form for modification, which for most people working on derivative works would probably *not* be the Word docs? The people actually doing modifications use the Word format, not the HTML format. It seems clear to me that the Word format is preferred. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free Art License
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:15:28 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that is DFSG-free. Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ And here's my comments. Free Art License [ Copyleft Attitude ] version 1.2 Preamble : [...] 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION) [...] - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). I'm a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to distribute a work under this license, I forever required to keep updated information on where recipients can access every previous version. What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of where it goes? What if the original vanishes? Have I to keep a copy of the original and make it available, in order to be able to distribute a subsequent work? Both these requirements seem non-free. [...] 3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this license. This does not seem to be clearly drafted, IMHO. [...] 6. VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE LICENCE This license may undergo periodic modifications to incorporate improvements by its authors (instigators of the copyleft attitude movement) by way of new, numbered versions. You will have the choice of accepting the provisions contained in the version under which the copy was communicated to you, or alternatively, to use the provisions of one of the subsequent versions. Please notice that this is an auto-upgrade clause. Not a freeness issue per se, but something to keep in mind anyway. [...] 8. THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT This license is subject to French law. Choice of law, which is not a problem. In summary, this license seems to be *intended* to be a free copyleft one (but incompatible with GPLv2). There are some issues though that seem to make it fail. It's not a license that I would recommend (even in absense of the the issues with clause 2.2), because of its lack of clarity. What do others think? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpfiv1dybZHZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free Art License [was: Re: [Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]]
Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards. FSF lists it as a free documentation license soon after the GFDL. Other than section 8, it seems a simple, GPL-incompatible (due to section 3), copyleft license. andrew On 4/28/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that is DFSG-free. Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License [ Copyleft Attitude ] version 1.2 Preamble : With this Free Art License, you are authorised to copy, distribute and freely transform the work of art while respecting the rights of the originator. Far from ignoring the author's rights, this license recognises them and protects them. It reformulates their principle while making it possible for the public to make creative use of the works of art. Whereas current literary and artistic property rights result in restriction of the public's access to works of art, the goal of the Free Art License is to encourage such access. The intention is to make work accessible and to authorise the use of its resources by the greatest number of people: to use it in order to increase its use, to create new conditions for creation in order to multiply the possibilities of creation, while respecting the originators in according them recognition and defending their moral rights. In fact, with the arrival of the digital age, the invention of the Internet and free software, a new approach to creation and production has made its appearance. It also encourages a continuation of the process of experimentation undertaken by many contemporary artists. Knowledge and creativity are resources which, to be true to themselves, must remain free, i.e. remain a fundamental search which is not directly related to a concrete application. Creating means discovering the unknown, means inventing a reality without any heed to realism. Thus, the object(ive) of art is not equivalent to the finished and defined art object. This is the basic aim of this Free Art License: to promote and protect artistic practice freed from the rules of the market economy. --- DEFINITIONS - The work of art : A communal work which includes the initial artwork as well as all subsequent contributions (subsequent originals and copies). It is created at the initiative of the original artist who, by this license, defines the conditions according to which the contributions are made. - The original work of art : This is the artwork created by the initiator of the communal work, of which copies will be modified by whosoever wishes. - Subsequent works : These are the additions put forward by the artists who contribute to the formation of the work by taking advantage of the right to reproduction, distribution and modification that this license confers on them. - The Original (the work's source or resource) : A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. - Copy : Any reproduction of an original as defined by this license. - The author or the artist of the original work of art: This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the ramifications of this modified work of art. By this license, the author determines the conditions under which these modifications are made. - Contributor: Any person who contributes to the creation of the work of art. He is the author or the artist of an original art object resulting from the modification of a copy of the initial artwork or the modification of a copy of a subsequent work of art. --- 1. AIMS The aim of this license is to define the conditions according to which you can use this work freely. 2. EXTENT OF THE USAGE This work of art is subject to copyright, and the author, by this license, specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute and modify it. 2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR OF REPRODUCTION) You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION) You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found, - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the
Re: Apache license 1.1 for non-Apache software
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ? Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be. I don't agree. The license under analysis is fully quoted below (for future reference). I do *not* think that a work released solely under this license can be considered to comply with the DFSG. To sum up, I hope persuading upstream to do one of following actions: - give permission to Debian project to package his softwares (like Apache Fundation for apache-1.3 woody packages [1]), - switch license to Apache license 2.0 like [2], - switch licens to 3-clause BSD [3] or Horde BSD-like [4], - switch license to GPL [5] like other horde softwares. [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apache/apache_1.3.26-0woody6/copyright [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html [4] http://www.horde.org/licenses/bsdl.php [5] http://www.horde.org/licenses/gpl.php Regards, -- Gregory Colpart [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG:1024D/C1027A0E Evolix - Informatique et Logiciels Libres http://www.evolix.fr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:46:18PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to be pulled from the repository? Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free categorization are necessary here. GPL requires the preferred form for modification, which for most people working on derivative works would probably *not* be the Word docs? The people actually doing modifications use the Word format, not the HTML format. It seems clear to me that the Word format is preferred. I prefer html over Word. If I modify the document, I'm going to modify the html, not the Word document. (Not just because I don't have the Word doc, but because I think Word docs are a lousy source format.) To my understanding, the only thing required to show that a certain file format is the preferred form is to use it as the basis for modifications. This seems like a pretty easy standard for the package maintainer to meet, if indeed the html format is the preferred form. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
確実な高収入！パソコンが自動で稼 ぐソフトの情報！
突然のメール失礼いたします。 最高のシステムです！あなたのパソコンにインストールするだけで 自動販売機のように勝手に稼いでくれるソフトです。 あなたの自宅のパソコンに 「２４時間年中無休収入稼動ソフト - Inter4277（インター4277）」 をインストールして永続的な高収入を稼いでみませんか？ メール特別価格：3850円（定価：9850） ※情報マニュアル・プログラム参加権利付 上記特別価格はこのメールを受け取った際に適用されます。 ウェブ上では定価：9850円で設けておりますので、 お申込の際は必ずこのメールを受け取った旨お知らせ下さい。 現在はプログラム参加者２次募集中（定員５０名）です。 先行募集となりますのでプログラム参加は今のうちがお得です！ お申込・詳細希望の方は題名を 「自動稼動プログラムソフトに関して」 と記載の上 [EMAIL PROTECTED] までお気軽にお寄せくださいませ。 究極の高収入自動稼動ソフト 「Inter4277（インターヨンニー）」 http://nandemohosting.com/jp/inter4277.htm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
