Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
"Ryan Finnie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail, > which is wholly non-free. Can it perform its function in the absence of qmail? Perhaps in the presence of another MTA which is free? > Even if the license is clean, does this make the software part of > the non-free archive as well? The 'contrib' archive exists for free software that depends on non-free software. > I guess theoretically you could write Free software that would > interface with magic-smtpd... If that is ever the case, the package would at that point no longer be prohibited from 'main' for this. Another possibility is to modify the program so that it performs a useful function with any MTA, at which point qmail is merely one of the possible dependencies. -- \"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to tell the truth | `\and expose lies." -- Noam Chomsky | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:04:28PM -0700, Ryan Finnie wrote: > Greetings, > > I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some > help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here: > > 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the > OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company > itself considers it "open source", but I feel I am not qualified to > make a determination. > > 2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail, > which is wholly non-free. Even if the license is clean, does this > make the software part of the non-free archive as well? I guess > theoretically you could write Free software that would interface with > magic-smtpd... > Maybe contrib. If it is deemed to be free and then depends on non-free software to be functional, it would go into contrib. > > 13.6 Dispute Resolution. Any litigation or other dispute resolution > between You and THE WIZARDS relating to this License shall take place > in the Province of British Columbia, and You and THE WIZARDS hereby > consent to the personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, the state and > federal courts within that Province with respect to this License. The > application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the > International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. > > 13.7 Entire Agreement; Governing Law. This License constitutes the > entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject > matter hereof. This License shall be governed by the laws of Canada > and the Provncie of British Columbia, except that body of British > Columbia law concerning conflicts of law. Where You are located in > the province of Quebec, Canada, the following clause applies: The > parties hereby confirm that they have requested that this License and > all related documents be drafted in English. Les parties ont exigé que > le présent contrat et tous les documents connexes soient rédigés en > anglais. > I'm no legal expert, but I seem to recall that these type of venue selection clauses make the licenses non-free. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Greetings,
I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
itself considers it "open source", but I feel I am not qualified to
make a determination.
2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail,
which is wholly non-free. Even if the license is clean, does this
make the software part of the non-free archive as well? I guess
theoretically you could write Free software that would interface with
magic-smtpd...
3. More of a technical packaging question, but as long as I'm here...
Since magic-smtpd basically requires qmail, and qmail technically
doesn't exist within Debian (you get the qmail-src package and run
build-qmail to build your own local qmail .deb), will having a
Depends: qmail (but it doesn't Build-Depends: qmail) be a problem to
the Debian package system? Would I have to Recommends: qmail instead?
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Finnie
[0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=296037
[1] http://www.linuxmagic.com/opensource/magicmail/magic-smtpd/
[2] http://www.linuxmagic.com/opensource/licensing/FSCL.txt
--
Our Free Source Code License
Version 1.0 - April 17, 2001
NOTE! Many of LinuxMagic's Software's are released under the GPL, or
Proprietary Licence, instead of this license (FSCL), so please read
the specific CopyRight Notice in each Software Package.
General Note: This License is in use to ensure that LinuxMagic Inc. or
Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd., the Copyright holder(s), maintain
some level of control over the modifications of the source code, and
it's use. In general, this copyright notice is used to ensure that
distribution is free, and the source code is made available to it's
users. For questions on our Licensing Policies, contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Parts of this License
created based on the Apple Public Software License.
Please read this License carefully before downloading or using this
software. By downloading or using this software, you are agreeing to
be bound by the terms of this License. If you do not or cannot agree
to the terms of this License, please do not download or use the
software.
1. General; Definitions. This License applies to any program or other
work which LinuxMagic Inc. or Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. ("THE
WIZARDS") make publicly available and which contain a notice placed by
"THE WIZARDS" identifying such program or work as "Original Code" and
stating that it is subject to the terms of this Free Source Code
License version 1.0 (or subsequent version thereof) ("License"). As
used in this License:
1.1 "Applicable Patent Rights" mean:
(a) in the case where THE WIZARDS are the grantor of rights,
(i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter
acquired, owned by
or assigned to THE WIZARDS and
(ii) that cover subject matter contained in the
Original Code, but
only to the extent necessary to use, reproduce and/or distribute the
Original Code without infringement; and
(b) in the case where You are the grantor of rights,
(i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter
acquired, owned by
or assigned to You and
(ii) that cover subject matter in Your Modifications,
taken alone
or in combination with Original Code.
1.2 "Contributor" means any person or entity that creates or
contributes to the creation of Modifications.
1.3 "Covered Code" means the Original Code, Modifications, the
combination of Original Code and any Modifications, and/or any
respective portions thereof.
1.4 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code
other than for Your internal research and development (R&D) and/or
Personal Use, and includes without limitation, any and all internal
use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or
organization except for R&D use and/or Personal Use, as well as direct
or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any
third party in any form or manner.
1.5 "Larger Work" means a work which combines Covered Code or
portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License.
1.6 "Modifications" mean any addition to, deletion from, and/or
change to, the substance and/or structure of the Original Code, any
previous Modifications, the combination of Original Code and any
previous Modifications, and/or any respective portions thereof. When
code is released as a series of files, a Modification is: (a) any
addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing Covered
Code; and/or (b) any new file or other representation of computer
program statements th
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
On Wed, 2006-27-09 at 09:30 +1000, Nic Suzor wrote: > One thing that I am getting from Mia's argument is that CC is having > difficulty actually identifying people who would benefit from a parallel > distribution clause. She has stated that she is not aware of a > substantial segment of developers who would incorporate CC-licensed > material into products which require DRM (e.g., free software console > game developers). > > Can we get some examples, or at least a plausible use case which we can > put forward to CC? If we keep talking about hypotheticals, I think we're > less likely to be heard. I know that there are some Free Software games that use CC data elements (interstitial images, music, etc.) I wonder if any also use a game engine that has been ported to e.g. the PS/2? That's an interesting thought. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou -- http://evan.prodromou.name/ "By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms." -- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Evan Prodromou [Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:03:28AM -0400]: > Most importantly, who cares? Whether or not there's a conspiracy, the > same task is needed: to make the case to the public, on cc-licenses and > elsewhere, that rigid anti-DRM clauses inhibit freedom and and that > parallel distribution at a minimum is needed for users and for > developers. There is a strong emotional knee-jerk reaction against > parallel distribution, since it "allows DRM". It takes some work to > overcome that reaction. One thing that I am getting from Mia's argument is that CC is having difficulty actually identifying people who would benefit from a parallel distribution clause. She has stated that she is not aware of a substantial segment of developers who would incorporate CC-licensed material into products which require DRM (e.g., free software console game developers). Can we get some examples, or at least a plausible use case which we can put forward to CC? If we keep talking about hypotheticals, I think we're less likely to be heard. nic. --- Nic Suzor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nic.suzor.com 2B5F 5A21 7F3A D38E 99C0 7BC4 A2BA 7B79 B7E1 0D1C signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:15:47 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote: > My guess is that Mia's response is a political one. Their > international affiliates have opposed additional parallel distribution > language; we've said that the language in the 3.0 draft may be enough > to allow parallel distribution anyways. Rather than getting them > upset, she's given us a barely-qualified yes. I think we should take > our victory as gracefully and discreetly as we can. Is that a victory? We do not even really know if parallel distribution is meant to be allowed in cases where the licensor is the license drafter... -- 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 pgp5MgkNas2hh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: Problem with license of msv-xsdlib]
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:31:21 +0200 (MEST) Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote: [> Francesco Poli wrote] > > Maybe another person who recommends the GPL could be useful to add > > "pressure" to adopt a DFSG-free licensing scheme... I don't know... > Neither do I, but if I manage to change Sun's opinion, I think you'll > hear about it ;-) No doubt about it! :) And I would be very happy to hear such news... > > I'm a techie and always accepted the fact that people were saying > computers are complicated; then I worked a while with Finance people, > and I thought "*that* is complicated"; but I think I still need to > discover legal matters :-> Try and follow debian-legal for some time: I think you would really enjoy legal/freeness issues! ;-) -- 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 pgpzUEAu3KbZM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Are you talking about this license? > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode As far as I know, yes. > It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the > relevant section from CC Scotland: > > 2.2 However, this Licence does not allow you to: > > 1. impose any terms or any technological measures on the > Work, or a Derivative Work, that alter or restrict the > terms of this Licence or any rights granted under it or > have the effect or intent of restricting the ability of > any person to exercise those rights; > > and from CC 3.0 generic draft: > > 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. > > The Scottish one has a nice brevity in that it combines concerns about > DRM and extra license terms, and restrictions on verbatim and modified > copies, in one sentence. Otherwise, I don't see an order-of-magnitude > difference in the simplicity of the text. The Scottish quote above seems equivalent to CC 3.0draft+parallel's: [...] You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License unless You also make a copy or phonorecord of the Work available to the recipient, without additional fee, in at least one medium that does not restrict the ability of a recipient of that copy or phonorecord of the Work to exercise the rights granted to them under the License, provided that that copy or phonorecord of the Work is at least as accessible to the recipient as a practical matter as the Restricted Format. You may not sublicense the Work. [...] 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. [...] You may not offer or impose any terms on the Adaptation that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise of the rights granted under the License unless You also make a copy or phonorecord of the Work available to the recipient, without additional fee, in at least one medium that does not restrict the ability of a recipient of that copy or phonorecord of the Work to exercise the rights granted to them under the License, provided that that copy or phonorecord of the Work is at least as accessible to the recipient as a practical matter as the Restricted Format. [...] 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. [...] and maybe some other bits too (CC3.0 is a long licence). The Scotland one is far briefer, especially when viewed in context, and it has the apparently crucial difference of including 'effect or intent'. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- 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 Sun, 2006-24-09 at 11:47 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > If they wanted to "prevent license complication" why didn't they base > > CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows > > parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't? > > 'Cause they're not that bright. ;-) Basing 3.0 on CC-Scotland probably > seemed "too radical" and basing it on CC2.5-generic seemed > more "conservative". People make stupid decisions like that. Most of them > probably never even read CC-Scotland, despite our suggestions. Are you talking about this license? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the relevant section from CC Scotland: 2.2 However, this Licence does not allow you to: 1. impose any terms or any technological measures on the Work, or a Derivative Work, that alter or restrict the terms of this Licence or any rights granted under it or have the effect or intent of restricting the ability of any person to exercise those rights; ...and from CC 3.0 generic draft: 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. The Scottish one has a nice brevity in that it combines concerns about DRM and extra license terms, and restrictions on verbatim and modified copies, in one sentence. Otherwise, I don't see an order-of-magnitude difference in the simplicity of the text. ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 09:42 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is > > not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its > > lead starts arguing CC's point in public. > > What "point" is that? That the workgroup's presented views do not reflect debian views. > You're simply wrong on this, and if you go back to the email discussions > on the debian-cc list you'll see that you're wrong. Mia talked to us > about the Rio decision as if we had no options; *I* was the one who > pointed out the results of the GFDL GR to her. That was a tactical error. IIRC, I consistently opposed suggesting that the GR was somehow not specific to FDL and offers a get-out route for CC. > You insist on a conspiracy theorist's view of the situation: that the CC > leadership subverted parallel distribution for some reason mostly to do > with humiliating Debian and that international affiliates didn't oppose > parallel distribution. That is not my insistence. I am highlighting: 1. the proposed parallel distribution clause was needlessly complicated; 2. simpler parallel distribution terms already exist in some CC licences; 3. we do not know how, why or even exactly what Rio decision was taken, nor how it can be revisited; 4. CC know how we make decisions and seem to be assuming a high-level decision in their favour. > Your theory is internally inconsistent. Unsurprising, as it's not my theory. > Why would Garlick and Lessig > give us a draft license with a parallel distribution proviso in it, just > to take it away again? I don't believe they intended to take it away again. > What about posts to the cc-licenses list by > international affiliates saying, "I opposed this proviso at Rio?" So far, I've seen one of those and it was mainly on grounds of complexity, which could be addressed easily, but no opportunity was given to do so. Then again, maybe some international affiliates have posted without disclosing their hat - I don't know the CC community as well as some. > Most importantly, who cares? [...] I care. I dislike having both hands tied behind my back. > > As a member, I share common > > responsibility for the workgroup's failure on this, but it is not my > > fault alone. > > Your failure is in not making a convincing argument to the public on the > cc-licenses list about parallel distribution. You are very intelligent, > well-versed in this subject, and you convey ideas clearly. You have some > experience talking with at least a few of the people opposing parallel > distribution on the list. You could make a difference, but you're not. I'm still in the midst of moving coast-to-coast, which is rather a distraction. I am forced to prioritise all my work. Given that cc-licenses appears to have no clear role in CC, it was not a high priority. > > However, there is still hope: CC's leadership decision is not CC users' > > view. Joe CC Public seems to have no input into it, or oversight of it. > > cc-licenses. How does that restricted list give CC users input or oversight? The decisions seem to appear out of the blue, undocumented. How can Joe CC Public influence the decisions through it? [...] > > How can anyone discuss decisions made by a secret process for secret > > reasons in any useful way? If that decision is to be changed, it helps > > to know how and why it was made, but we simply have almost no data on it. > > There's a clear process for changing the decision: get public opposition > against it, primarily on the CC's principle public conduit, the > cc-licenses list. I have seen it work in the past; for instance, with > the proposed changes to the 2.0 ShareAlike clause to allow any > ShareAlike license to be compatible with any other. How is that clear? Seems like guesswork and wishes to me. > I'm sad to see that [...] Please stop these sad personal attacks. They do not work on me. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 09:42 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is > not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its > lead starts arguing CC's point in public. What "point" is that? You're simply wrong on this, and if you go back to the email discussions on the debian-cc list you'll see that you're wrong. Mia talked to us about the Rio decision as if we had no options; *I* was the one who pointed out the results of the GFDL GR to her. You insist on a conspiracy theorist's view of the situation: that the CC leadership subverted parallel distribution for some reason mostly to do with humiliating Debian and that international affiliates didn't oppose parallel distribution. Your theory is internally inconsistent. Why would Garlick and Lessig give us a draft license with a parallel distribution proviso in it, just to take it away again? What about posts to the cc-licenses list by international affiliates saying, "I opposed this proviso at Rio?" Most importantly, who cares? Whether or not there's a conspiracy, the same task is needed: to make the case to the public, on cc-licenses and elsewhere, that rigid anti-DRM clauses inhibit freedom and and that parallel distribution at a minimum is needed for users and for developers. There is a strong emotional knee-jerk reaction against parallel distribution, since it "allows DRM". It takes some work to overcome that reaction. > As a member, I share common > responsibility for the workgroup's failure on this, but it is not my > fault alone. Your failure is in not making a convincing argument to the public on the cc-licenses list about parallel distribution. You are very intelligent, well-versed in this subject, and you convey ideas clearly. You have some experience talking with at least a few of the people opposing parallel distribution on the list. You could make a difference, but you're not. > However, there is still hope: CC's leadership decision is not CC users' > view. Joe CC Public seems to have no input into it, or oversight of it. cc-licenses. > > Fixating on the mechanics of CC's decision about parallel distribution > > has done little good, and demonizing Creative Commons over it has done > > less. > > How can anyone discuss decisions made by a secret process for secret > reasons in any useful way? If that decision is to be changed, it helps > to know how and why it was made, but we simply have almost no data on it. There's a clear process for changing the decision: get public opposition against it, primarily on the CC's principle public conduit, the cc-licenses list. I have seen it work in the past; for instance, with the proposed changes to the 2.0 ShareAlike clause to allow any ShareAlike license to be compatible with any other. > I'm disappointed that anyone would think starting with 'you may feel' > excuses posting personal attacks to an open list. I'm sad to see that when presented with a difficult situation you've resorted to ineffectual smear tactics. I'm sad to see someone who could be doing useful work for Debian and for Free Software obsessing about minutiae. I know you can do better. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/26/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines > > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public > > domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the > > author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage." > > Where is that standardised? For English authors, I'd prefer the OP's > statement to this one, but that may be different in countries where > the government copyright agency doesn't use 'in the public domain' to > mean it's available to the general public. It's not 'really' standardised, it is used however by some big projects, e.g. Wikipedia, to release stuff as PD. Also as I said it's something along the lines of that, not that exact wording. One of the exact wordings used by Wikipedia (from Template:PD-self[1]) is : I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. : This applies worldwide. : In case this is not legally possible, : I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any : conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. More can be found from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags[2]. I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works in pretty much all jurisdictions. Do you have any example of such a 'No Rights Reserved' license? I thought that the best one could do would be to use the MIT-license, since there isn't any (generally known) license which would give the recipient more rights. (And custom licenses are generally frowned upon.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-self [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Public_domain -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Yahoo! DomainKeys license
OK, another stab at this beast! I've been in contact with Mark Delany, the Yahoo! engineer that wrote the draft and administrates the DomainKeys SourceForge project. HINAL though, AFAIK. On Saturday 17 June 2006 19:41, Joe Smith took the opportunity to say: > On 6/17/06, Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >[snip] > > The whole DK thing is experimental, but for those wishing to experiment, > > at > > least Exim and SpamAssassin are prepared to use these prospective > > packages. > > It is also my understanding that Yahoo's license, unlike Microsoft's > > SenderID > > license, is quite OK. Is that correct? > > I don't know. I glanced at the licence, and it was not terribly clear, if > you have not done so already, you should probably ask d-legal to look at > the licence. > I am CCing that list. > > Below is my initial analysis of the licence. The licence url is: > http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/license/softwarelicense1-1.html, and I > have included a complete copy at the end of this message. > > Ok, 1.1 does not seem to grant the right to sell the code/program. Section > 1.2 grants the right to sell "for the sole purpose of implementing a sender > verification solution in connection with e-mail.". I'm not sure if limiting > the scope of Sale is allowed by the DFSG or not. But section 1.1 grants the right to modify and distribute the code. Without an explicit limitation that must mean that one can charge any consideration for it. Section 1.2 grants the right to infringe on the patents with the code (and modifications to it) insofar it's needed to implement a sender verification solution etc. But that's a patent license, and that can't be directly connected to the code. They also license their patent claims under their Patent License v 1.2, which says nothing about any particular code. Anyway, section 1.2 can't limit the ways the code can be used with respect to copyright, you can't expect them to completely waive their patents, and the impact of patents on DFSG-freeness has already been discussed at length. > I'm slightly concerned that the "specification" is an Internet-Draft. More > distubing is that the Licence give a URL for the Draft, but the URL does > not work. > Section 3.3 says "You must create Your own product or service names or > trademarks for Your Licensed Code and You agree not to use the term > "DomainKeys" in or as part of a name or trademark for Your Licensed Code.". > This may be a problem, considering the name of the package. According to Mark Delany it's OK to call the package that as long as the source code is unmodified. The DFSG specifically allows licenses that require name changes if the code is modified. > Section 3.5 is a you must obey the laws section. > > Section 3.8 is choice of law and venue. Yes, those are the problematic ones. Instances of both have been discussed here and are disliked by many, but was there consensus as to whether such clauses go against the DFSG? DFSG 6 perhaps, if "breaking the law" is a "Fields of Endeavor". OK, choice of venue can be nasty, but at least one is entitled to get legal notice and a chance to respond in writing before having to physically appear before the court for oral deliberations? > It looks like Yahoo was indeed trying to create a a Free licence, or at > least an Open-Source licence. However, it clearly fails the part 10 of the > OSD (it is not technology nutral, as it is specific to e-mail), and is > quite likely to be running afoul of the DFSG. It should at least be uploadable to non-free. But in that case Exim can't be linked with it unless Exim is moved to contrib, which is unacceptable. Seeing as DomainKeys is experimental and even obsolete already, but still not replaced with DKIM at Yahoo (for instance), the value of these packages can be questioned. OTOH, DKIM is still experimental too. I think it can make sense to include DomainKeys packages in Etch and drop them again for the next release. > - > FULL LICENCE TEXT: > > Yahoo! DomainKeys Public License Agreement v1.1 > (this "Agreement") > Copyright (c) 2004, Yahoo! Inc. > All rights reserved. > > This Agreement is between Licensor and You. You agree to be bound by all > the terms and conditions set forth below, and, subject to those terms and > conditions, You may use the intellectual property described below. > > 1. LICENSE GRANT. > > 1.1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, each DomainKeys > Developer hereby grants You a royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide, > sublicensable, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publicly > display, publicly perform, and distribute the Licensed Code. > > 1.2. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Licensor hereby > grants You a royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide, sublicensable, > non-exclusive license under its rights to the Yahoo! Patent Claims to make, > use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import the Licensed Cod
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public > domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the > author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage." Where is that standardised? For English authors, I'd prefer the OP's statement to this one, but that may be different in countries where the government copyright agency doesn't use 'in the public domain' to mean it's available to the general public. It's not 'really' standardised, it is used however by some big projects, e.g. Wikipedia, to release stuff as PD. Also as I said it's something along the lines of that, not that exact wording. I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works in pretty much all jurisdictions. -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have no documentation on how parallel distribution is absolutely > necessary to satisfy the DFSG, nor do we have much of a mechanism short > of a GR to determine if this is the consensus of Debian as a whole. We have documentation, but not a clear internal agreement that stops CC's lawyers thinking we can be turned. The outline of the agreement is simple - free redistribution includes the freedom to redistribute on user-locked media as long as all other freedoms remain intact - and our main methods for formalising that seem clear - ftpmaster precedents and/or using the SRP to issue a GR - but, CC seemed to suggest that they are relying on our inability to do that. So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its lead starts arguing CC's point in public. As a member, I share common responsibility for the workgroup's failure on this, but it is not my fault alone. However, there is still hope: CC's leadership decision is not CC users' view. Joe CC Public seems to have no input into it, or oversight of it. > Fixating on the mechanics of CC's decision about parallel distribution > has done little good, and demonizing Creative Commons over it has done > less. How can anyone discuss decisions made by a secret process for secret reasons in any useful way? If that decision is to be changed, it helps to know how and why it was made, but we simply have almost no data on it. The little snippets I have heard from Englishmen present at iSummit are rebutted very easily by CC's leaders, but never replaced with fuller descriptions of what happened there. I think the most likely reason is that CC's leaders don't want to discuss this sincerely now. For all I know, I could convince every single subscriber to cc-discuss and it might make no difference - maybe CC is ruled by inviolable precedents of hum votes. I just don't know and it seems they've just point-blank refused to explain how CC makes decisions. This isn't demonising: it's a serious CC bug which should be more widely known, like iCommons's erroneous anti-commercial charter. I remember being criticised for taking these comments to wider communities in the past, but this is why I do that: CC's discussion forums seem damped, narrow and impotent, which I think will only change when enough prominent CC supporters like Evan start to question that problem. > [...] I'd be disappointed if someone with as fine a mind as yours > gave up so easily and comforted himself with name-calling. I'm disappointed that anyone would think starting with 'you may feel' excuses posting personal attacks to an open list. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Problem with license of msv-xsdlib]
Hi, > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:21:18 +1000 Nic Suzor wrote: > >> Eric Lavarde - Debian [Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:52:43PM +0200]: >> > Hello again, >> > >> > Last tentative: what's wrong with my request that I don't get _any_ >> > answer? >> >> You did get an answer - check message from Joe Smith [Thu Sep 14, 2006 >> at 02:05:13PM -0400]. Sorry, I'm not on the list, did check the list archive after my first tentative, but didn't do after my second. I apologize for this. Joe: your answer was perfect, sorry that I missed it. :-[ >> >> I agree with Joe, and believe that a CDDL licence will get you in to >> non-free. However, nobody is exactly sure whether CDDL is DFSG-free >> and can go into main. Which would be an improvement over today's situation for this specific piece of software :-) >> >> The main points of contention seem to be the choice of venue clause, >> the requirement to identify contributors and the restriction that >> forbids moficiation of 'descriptive' text giving attribution. I can try to address these specific points, and see what comes back. > > [...] >> If you're looking for another licence to suggest, which you know will >> get into main, try the GPL. Licence proliferation is a bad thing; >> unless there's a good reason not to, I would always suggest adopting a >> GPL-compatible licence. > > I agree that GPLv2-compatibility is an important recommendation. > > Unfortunately Sun expressed dislike for the GPL in the past and > intentionally designed the CDDL to be GPL-incompatible: as a > consequence, I don't know how far recommending the GPL will get us... > :-( I do agree, to have a chance to succeed, I think that I need to offer a way in-between to the Sun persons. Nevertheless, if the CDDL is the company policy, not much I/they can do. > Maybe another person who recommends the GPL could be useful to add > "pressure" to adopt a DFSG-free licensing scheme... I don't know... Neither do I, but if I manage to change Sun's opinion, I think you'll hear about it ;-) I'm a techie and always accepted the fact that people were saying computers are complicated; then I worked a while with Finance people, and I thought "*that* is complicated"; but I think I still need to discover legal matters :-> Cheers, Eric -- You don't need to CC me on debian-java, debian-mentors and pkg-java-maintainers. Please CC me on other Debian lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public > domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the > author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage." Where is that standardised? For English authors, I'd prefer the OP's statement to this one, but that may be different in countries where the government copyright agency doesn't use 'in the public domain' to mean it's available to the general public. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
