Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The venue could make significant difference here, because the licensor could > be terribly wrong in one jurisdiction and correct in another. That's a problem with choice of law, not choice of venue. > Furthermore you can hadly measure whether the licensor is evil or not, > and can not just rely on his good faith. And that's an argument in favour of not shipping any software at all. > This kind of 'moving sands' via patch clauses are quite similar to > GFDL's invariant sections which Debian considers non-free. They're about as similar to invariant sections as I am. Keeping the variable sections of a license separate and easy to locate is useful - look at the vast number of slightly different versions of the 4-clause BSD, and how as a result there's a need to check that it's actually the same license in all cases rather than having been subtly modified. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain?
Hi again, Upstream has agreed to add a license file to the tgz archive: """ This program is totally free and public domain. Do what you want to do with the source code. If you want, just give me some credits (Michel Louvet) if you port the game on another platform or use part of the source code. WARNING : The graphics and sound of the games are copyrighted material. There are in .BMP or .WAV format so you can change them if you want to distribute a totally free game. """ Of course, graphics and sounds will have to be replaced. I have artists working on that. Will that license be OK in these terms? Thanks! Miry (Please CC me, I'm not in the list) __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain?
Seems to be. In my previous reply I was actually assuming you had that info in writing, not just an email. But this seems to be OK. On 8/10/06, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi again, Upstream has agreed to add a license file to the tgz archive: """ This program is totally free and public domain. Do what you want to do with the source code. If you want, just give me some credits (Michel Louvet) if you port the game on another platform or use part of the source code. WARNING : The graphics and sound of the games are copyrighted material. There are in .BMP or .WAV format so you can change them if you want to distribute a totally free game. """ Of course, graphics and sounds will have to be replaced. I have artists working on that. Will that license be OK in these terms? Thanks! Miry (Please CC me, I'm not in the list) __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
So, I have big news and a big question. Big news Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of their license suite: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017 The changes from the 2.x version are largely due to an effort to make the licenses compatible with the DFSG. Over the last year, the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup has worked with Creative Commons to smooth out the rough edges of license. DDs have already seen it, but there's a report here on the work: http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report Big question The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this: Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the DFSG? That question needs some clarification, though. The big question for debian-legal is whether the new license draft is compatible with the DFSG. I hope that debian-legal subscribers will look over the new license carefully and post opinions here or on the cc-licenses mailing list. Creative Commons met almost all of the Workgroup's recommendations, and after a lot of review we've agreed that the works licensed solely under the CCPL 3.0 draft would be Free... with one exception. The exception is that the CCPL 3.0 has an anti-DRM (or anti-TPM) provision that doesn't allow distribution with copy protection features. The traditional wisdom is that prohibiting use of TPM puts an undue restriction on developers and doesn't let them experiment with TPM-required platforms. (Some console game systems, for example, require TPM for a program to run on the system.) Restricting the systems that a program can be ported to is incompatible with DFSG#3. One way to make anti-TPM clauses compatible with the DFSG is to allow "parallel distribution" -- that is, a developer can create a TPM'd version of a work as long as they also make available a cleartext one that people can modify, copy, etc. This lets developers experiment, but also lets downstream users exercise their rights, too. We'd originally negotiated a parallel distribution proviso, but the extra clause was later removed. So, the CCPL 3.0 license draft has this language for DRM restrictions: You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to them under the License. Since we negotiated the license changes, Debian has had a GR to allow works licensed under the GFDL into main. The GFDL has the following anti-DRM clause: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. GR 2006-01 says, in part, Similarly, we do not think that GFDL covered documentation is non-free because of the measures taken in the license against misuse of DRM-protected media. The Debian Creative Commons Workgroup couldn't come to a clear conclusion on the matter, and it's not 100% clear what the effect of GR 2006-01 is on Debian as a whole. In my personal opinion, the question boils down to these points: 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? 2. If it was a clarification, does this mean that anti-DRM clauses like the one in the FDL are compatible with the DFSG? 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it compatible with the DFSG? My personal opinion is that in light of GR 2006-01 this kind of restriction is compatible with the DFSG. (I also personally think that anti-DRM clauses are really bad for Free Content; see http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM ...for more. I voted against this part of GR 2006-01, for the record.) I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, and I'd be happy to collect them and present them to Creative Commons. It's not clear how long the public comments period is, so there is a time factor here. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou wrote: > > > Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of > their license suite: > > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017 > > Big question > > > The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this: > > Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a > parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the > DFSG? > > > In my personal opinion, the question boils down to these points: > > 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of > our principles? IMO, it should be considered as a clarification. In GR 2006-01, there is nothing to imply itself as an exception. > 2. If it was a clarification, does this mean that anti-DRM clauses > like the one in the FDL are compatible with the DFSG? Rather difficult to answer. Since FDL without unmodified sections is considered compatible with the DFSG, it's reasonable to conclude that anti-DRM clauses, part of FDL, are compatible with the DFSG. However, Choice 2, the winner of GR 2006-01, doesn't mention anti-DRM clauses. It does says "we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.", while it also says "Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections". IMO, the statement of Choice 2 is not very clear. At least, the statement of Choice 2 is very simple, compared with Choice 1 or Choice 3. Specially, it doesn't mention anything about anti-DRM, while both Choice 1 and Choice 3 give explicit arguments. > 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar > enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it > compatible with the DFSG? If we consider FDL's anti-DRM clause compatible with the DFSG, CC's should also be compatible. In fact, FDL goes further than CC 3.0. FDL even restrict your right to *make* a copy on DRM media. My personal opinion is that though we should always respect the DFSG, it's better to explain the DFSG in a looser way. Personally I think anti-DRM in the FDL's way is against DFSG. But if the whole Debian community do agree with me, it may be a disaster. CCPL 3.0 is not compatible, GPL v3.0 may also not be compatible. Then Debian will encounter many difficulties in using a lot of valuable and important, sometimes even essential, works. Explaining the DFSG in a looser way may be considered as a necessary strategy. FSF tends to say that LGPL is a strategy.(It's not a accurate comparison.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this: > >Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a >parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the >DFSG? I see no reason to believe that the DFSG forbids such a clause. Do you? >The exception is that the CCPL 3.0 has an anti-DRM (or anti-TPM) >provision that doesn't allow distribution with copy protection features. >The traditional wisdom is that prohibiting use of TPM puts an undue >restriction on developers and doesn't let them experiment with >TPM-required platforms. (Some console game systems, for example, require >TPM for a program to run on the system.) Restricting the systems that a I do not understand well this objection. These systems need software to be digitally signed, and the license does not forbid me to distribute a signature for an executable I compiled as long as I satisfy the other licensing requirements. Even if the work (think about an e-book) had to be encrypted in a way that does not allow the user to use it on an hypotetical compatible but DRM-free system then I believe that parallel distribution (even if not explicitly mentioned) would satisfy the license because it would allow the recipient to "exercise the rights granted to them under the License". (This without starting to debate the freeness of DRM protection clauses.) > 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of >our principles? If it were an exception then this would have been explained in the GR itself, I see no reason to believe this. "we do not think that..." is obviously a clarification to me. > 2. If it was a clarification, does this mean that anti-DRM clauses >like the one in the FDL are compatible with the DFSG? Yes. > 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar >enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it >compatible with the DFSG? Yes, it's even less strict. >My personal opinion is that in light of GR 2006-01 this kind of >restriction is compatible with the DFSG. (I also personally think that >anti-DRM clauses are really bad for Free Content; see > >http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM Parallel distribution solves this. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 11:26 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > GR 2006-01 says, in part, I accidentally quoted a section from an option of the GR that didn't pass. Sorry about that. I don't think the mistake invalidates the discussion, but I wanted to point it out. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
> > 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of > > our principles? Consider an analogy. An amusement park ride puts up a sign saying that kids must be 4 feet tall to enter. A little while later, it declares that kids must be allowed in if they're 47 inches, and furthermore that this isn't a change to the 4 foot rule. Is that a clarification or an exception? I'd say that someone who couldn't count obviously meant for it to be a clarification. But clarifying means choosing an interpretation of something ambiguous; 4 feet isn't ambiguous. They may have *meant* to clarify the rule, but they really didn't. The same applies to the GR. People had well-reasoned, detailed, arguments about why the GFDL doesn't meet the DFSG. A GR can tell you to ignore a valid argument, but it can't actually make the valid argument become invalid. It can't, in other words, clarify the rules into saying something they don't say; that isn't what a clarification is. It's an exception which pretends to be a clarification. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
