Re: Software patents and Debian
This one time, at band camp, Weakish Jiang said: > Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > I thought we didn't care > > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely > > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets > > patented. > > > Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at > all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the opposite of current practice. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: >> It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. > > If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear > a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. > > Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be > persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. If it's important that Chinese Dissidents be able to release software without putting their name all over it or telling anyone about it, it would seem logical for them to be able to ensure that they be able to demand people remove any credits that they may have accidently left on a piece of software. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think that stating "This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by > > James O. Hacker" is an accurate credit, as long as it's true. > > Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to > > fail DFSG#3. > > It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. Regards, -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpLd11ksQZbw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Software patents and Debian
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:43:51AM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at > >> all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. > > > > That's an interesting assertion, which contradicts current behaviour. > > IMO, we should put these softwares in Non-US/Main. I don't think it's > right to put them in main. I've got absolutely no idea how that would solve any of the problems at all. The US is hardly the only jurisdiction with the potential for hostile patent suits. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software patents and Debian
Matthew Garrett wrote: > Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at >> all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. > > That's an interesting assertion, which contradicts current behaviour. IMO, we should put these softwares in Non-US/Main. I don't think it's right to put them in main. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software patents and Debian
Bas Wijnen wrote: > It would be illegal for us > to distribute it to anyone else. We can of course claim that we don't know, > and assume that the programmer knew what he was doing. This is not unlikely > (actually, it's even true for me). This means we only have to stop > distributing when the programmer does indeed get sued and loses the case. It's not reasonable to claim that we don't know the mpeg-4 is patented. It's well known. > People do get sued for using the mpeg4 codec, IIUC. So does that > mean we would at least consider it non-free? Or not distributable at all? > In some countries software patent isn't recognized. IMO, we shouldn't put something in the non-free area, because it is illegal to distribute it in some countries. I think we should put them in Non-US/Main. But it seems that Debian ignore this issue. Maybe the Debian community think it won't be sued since we don't make money of the distribution? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software patents and Debian
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:44:25PM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote: > Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > I thought we didn't care about them except if they were actively enforced, > > because it's completely impossible to avoid all patented software, > > considering the junk that gets patented. > > > Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at > all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. Ok, I should be more careful with what I say on debian-legal. :-) What you say is obviously true if the programmer of the software has a patent on that software. However, in this case (and, I suppose, in the case of any other program), there are patents held by third parties. They may or may not actively enforce them. It is likely that distributing the program is a patent violation by the programmer, at least in some countries (such as the US). It is also a violation for us to distribute it in those countries (if the patents are valid, which is doubtful, but some of them may be, and this particular one for mpeg4 probably is, I think). So the license of the software is fine, the problem is that the programmer may be illegally distributing the software to us, and it would be illegal for us to distribute it to anyone else. We can of course claim that we don't know, and assume that the programmer knew what he was doing. This is not unlikely (actually, it's even true for me). This means we only have to stop distributing when the programmer does indeed get sued and loses the case. The question was if that is indeed the way Debian does these things. And in particular, people do get sued for using the mpeg4 codec, IIUC. So does that mean we would at least consider it non-free? Or not distributable at all? Of course IANAL (that's why I'm asking here ;-) ), so in case of any inaccuracies in the above, I'd appreciate corrections. Oh, and about the suggestion to remove the problematic code: That's an option, but I prefer not spending time on removing functionality from programs. Thanks, Bas Wijnen -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Software patents and Debian
Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bas Wijnen wrote: > I thought we didn't care >> about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely >> impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets >> patented. >> > Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at > all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. That's an interesting assertion, which contradicts current behaviour. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software patents and Debian
Bas Wijnen wrote: I thought we didn't care > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets > patented. > Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. -- 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
Francesco Poli wrote: > > While analyzing the license draft, I noted something strange. > The anti-DRM clause quoted by Evan is, substantially, the one found in > clause 4(a): > > | You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that > | restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to > | exercise their rights granted under the License. > > There's another one in clause 4(b), which is very similar, but not > equal: > > | You may not impose any effective technological measures on the > | Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the > | Adaptation from You to exercise their rights granted under the > | License. > > Please note the adjective "effective"! > > Questions: > > A) Why are these two clauses different from one another? > > B) Is the difference relevant with respect to DFSG compliance? > > C) Does specifying that only *effective* technological measures are > forbidden imply that parallel distribution (of DRM-encumbered and > DRM-*un*encumbered copies) is allowed for Adaptations? > It's strange that these two clauses are different, but I think they are equivalent. It seems that CreativeCommoons wants to fight against DRM using the CC license. -- 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
Francesco Poli wrote: > What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to be > by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the clauses > that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc? > I think that clarity in this respect would be very important, since > there's no way that works under CC-by-nc-sa can comply with the DFSG! > It's only a draft. And it's easy to distinguish clauses that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc. > > Clause 4(a) states, in part: > > | If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You > | must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection > | any credit as required by clause 4(d), as requested. If You > | create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, > | to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any > | credit as required by clause 4(d), as requested. > > This still concerns me... > What I do not understand basically boils down to: > > How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit > and meet the DFSG at the same time? > > I think that stating "This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by > James O. Hacker" is an accurate credit, as long as it's true. > Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to > fail DFSG#3. I don't think so. DFSG3 doesn't forbid some restrictions as long as they are necessary or reasonable. Image that I made a work based on the work _foo_ by > James O. Hacker, but it turns out to be a very terrible work, full of mistakes. People may think James O. Hacker's work is not very good work too. In this case, James O. Hacker may want me to remove hir credit. This is quite reasonable.DFSG3 shouldn't forbid this. > A more concrete example could be the one found in > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html > with some slight adaptations: an author who made a novel available under > an Attribution 3.0 license could give notice to disallow an annotated > version that accurately credits him/her as the author of the original > novel. That is to say: I can publish an annotated version of the novel, > but I could be forbidden to acknowledge the (true and correct) > authorship of the novel itself! > I cannot understand how this could be seen as DFSG-free... > I think it's the author's right to do so. And you always can add this to the copyright notice: This work is based on another work, whose author doesn't wish to put hir credit here. > > Clause 4(b) states, in part: > > |b. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under > | the terms of this License, a later version of this License with > | the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative > | Commons license for another jurisdiction that contains the > | same License Elements as this License (e.g., > | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan). > > It's worth noting that CC licenses have a mandatory version-upgrade > mechanism and also a mandatory jurisdiction-change mechanism. > This can weaken the copyleft of ShareAlike licenses, and possibly > trigger weird clauses such as "sue me in Scotland" (found in > CC-by-2.5/scotland, for instance). Authors, you have been warned! This is not a problem. Just think about dual licensing or GPL's example: under version 2.0 or any other license published by FSF. > > Clause 4(c) states, in part: > > |c. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in > | Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended > | for or directed toward commercial advantage or private > | monetary compensation. > > This clause fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#6, as it does in CC-v2.0 licenses (see > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html). > I hope that clause 4(c) is entirely absent from CC-by and CC-by-sa, but > unfortunately there's no clear indication in this draft. Of course it won't appear in CC-by and CC-by-sa. The draft is not for all the CC licenses, so it don't need to indicate this. > > Clause 4(d) states, in part: > > | in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such > | credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors > | of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these > | credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits > | for the other contributing authors. > > Wait, wait. > Credit must be "at least as prominent as the credits for the other > contributing authors". Even if the licensor's contribution is not > comparable to others? > I mean: I incorporate a short poem by Jack F. Poet into a novel that > includes 21 chapters written by Alice E. Writer and 25 chapters written > by me: the credit for Jack F. Poet must be at least as prominent as the > credits for the other authors?!? This only happens when "a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears" In your case, you may don't want to put such a
