Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I apologize if I have not been able to spend more time answering your > mails here (it is starting to get boring after a few years), I promise I > will do better in the future. Please, don't bother unless you can post something justified, instead of baseless nonsense like that I somehow invented ideas from 1999 since 2003. -- 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: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though. You didn't find any "final answer" because the thread didn't reach a clear consensus (and possibily is not even over, just in pause for a while...). The "final answer" on this sort of issue isn't arrived at through discussion on -legal at all. To quote an ftp-master: "the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license is suitable for distribution [...] isn't based on who shouts the loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive maintainers." [1] In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. The Workgroup's conclusion appears to hinge on whether one chooses to interpret the GFDL GR [4] as a precedent rather than an exemption, but I suspect that in the absence of another GR, it's the ftp-masters that'll be getting to choose. Similarly, while MJ Ray argues [5] that packages under the Open Font License making their way into main is proof of incompetence and/or oversight on the ftp-masters' part, is it not possible that they simply disagree with debian-legal's analysis and decided to let the packages in on that basis, just as they did in the case of Sun's Java licensing? As ever, the above is only my personal opinion and I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong when presented with appropriate evidence. Feel free to smash my thought experiment to bits as best as you are able. :-) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00129.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/08/msg00015.html [3] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report [4] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg1.html Cheers, -- Andrew Saunders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00161.html and the >reduction in mdgrams until now, for example. Or maybe the fact that in that period I changed my job, home and city. I apologize if I have not been able to spend more time answering your mails here (it is starting to get boring after a few years), I promise I will do better in the future. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC 3.0-SA unported
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:40:05 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
>
> I tried to include the text, but had trouble getting it to degrade
> nicely.
Here's the complete text, for future reference, obtained with
$ w3m -cols 70 -dump \
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode \
> CC-by-sa-v3.0final-unported_text.txt
and then included in this message after dropping the header and footer.
I hope I can followup with my comments soon, assuming I manage to find
the necessary time... :-(
Creative Commons Legal Code
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
[unported]
CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT
PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT
CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES
THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO
WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE.
License
THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS
PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE
WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS
PROHIBITED.
BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND
AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. TO THE EXTENT THIS
LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU
THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
1. Definitions
a. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation,
derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a
literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and
includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which
the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any
form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work
that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an
Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of
doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or
phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with
a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for
the purpose of this License.
b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works,
such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances,
phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other
than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the
selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute
intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its
entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
contributions, each constituting separate and independent works
in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective
whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be
considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of
this License.
c. "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is
listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has
been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent
to this License, including, at a minimum, because that license:
(i) contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect
as the License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly
permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available
under that license under this License or a Creative Commons
jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this
License.
d. "Distribute" means to make available to the public the original
and copies of the Work or Adaptation, as appropriate, through
sale or other transfer of ownership.
e. "License Elements" means the following high-level license
attributes as selected by Licensor and indicated in the title of
this License: Attribution, ShareAlike.
f. "Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities
that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.
g. "Original Author" means, in the case of a literary or artistic
work, the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created
the Work or if no individual or entity can be identified, the
publisher; and in addition (i) in the case of a performance the
actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act,
sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret or otherwise perform
literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore; (ii) in
the case of a phonogram the producer being the person or legal
entity who first fixes the sounds of a performance or other
sounds; and, (iii) in the case of broadcasts, the organization
that transmits the broadcast.
h. "Work" means th
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:42:49 +0100 Mathieu Stumpf wrote: > Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would > like to map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in > Debian. I really appreciate that you thought about this aspect *before* doing all the work (that is to say, before it's too late...). > > So I red some threads but I didn't find any final answer, are CC > 3.0[2] (and which one?) and free art license okay with the DFSG[3]? > > Regards etc. > > [1] http://www.stepmania.com/ > [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html > [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00131.html As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though. You didn't find any "final answer" because the thread didn't reach a clear consensus (and possibily is not even over, just in pause for a while...). Please note that there's another thread[4] which slipped to debian-legal from the cc-licenses mailing list. [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00063.html Also note that both threads continue on the next month (which is, BTW, *this* month!). As far as the Free Art License is concerned, my opinion is: * it does not meet the DFSG * it'a poorly drafted license * it seems to be primarily designed for material works of art (statues, physical paintings, ...), rather than for non-material ones (i.e.: digital works) If I recall correctly, little consensus was reached last time we discussed this license on debian-legal[5][6]. [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00257.html [6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg3.html HTH. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgptitlxcR7N7.pgp Description: PGP signature
CC 3.0-SA unported
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode I tried to include the text, but had trouble getting it to degrade nicely. This message will have general comments about the licence mixed in with DFSG freeness concerns. Unless I explicitly mention a comment as being a freeness-concern it is safe to assume I see it as only a general concern. Interesting definition of distribute: means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work or Adaptation, as appropriate, through sale or other transfer of ownership. I would not personally have required public availablily in the definition of distribute. The definition of "Publicly perforn" is sufficiently complex as to be a candidate for breaking out and numbering the subclauses. Section two looks perfectly fine to me. What is the need for Section 3(e)? The licence is explictly royalty-free. Is it really a legitimate concern who has the right to collect the non-existant royalties? I think this is cruft left over from the "noncommercial" versions of the licence. Section 4(a) has the first DFSG question that I have noticed: When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. This is the old DRM problem. It does not look to be resolved with this particular wording. 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 Section 4(c), 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 Section 4(c), as requested. This has been argued to potentially be a problem. It looks to exist in this form of the licence as well. Section 4(c) The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that 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. This one looks like it might be accaptable under the DFSG this time. For adaptations or collections, the promenance clause is restricted to those places where a complete enumeration of contributers can be found. That sounds to be like it is saying: if there is a section listing all contributers, then in that section, you should list all contributers in a manner that is equally prominent. In this form it sounds inconvient, but not nessisarally non-free. So all I'm noticing as potentially DFSG-freeness problems is the DRM, and credit removal. . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Java in Debian advice result
On 3/5/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:23:40AM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > So, from the lawyer's perspective, it is a matter of client-attorney > privilege. SPI now has to make the decision that full disclosure to the > public via d-l is worth the potential risk of losing that protection. My > guess would be the lawyer has done the research on how one could bring suit > against Debian/SPI/3rd party and disclosure would be like handing a roadmap > to "the enemy." You generally want to make the cost of bringing suit against > you as high as possible to warred off long-shot litigation. > OK. Makes perfect sense to me. And me. Ta muchly for the explanation. Cheers, -- Andrew Saunders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Java in Debian advice result
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:23:40AM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > So, from the lawyer's perspective, it is a matter of client-attorney > privilege. SPI now has to make the decision that full disclosure to the > public via d-l is worth the potential risk of losing that protection. My > guess would be the lawyer has done the research on how one could bring suit > against Debian/SPI/3rd party and disclosure would be like handing a roadmap > to "the enemy." You generally want to make the cost of bringing suit against > you as high as possible to warred off long-shot litigation. > OK. Makes perfect sense to me. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Java in Debian advice result
On Monday 05 March 2007 05:17:50 am Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:10:33PM +, Andrew Saunders wrote: > > On 2/28/07, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >to summarize the situation here. SPI's attorney has asked that his > > >messages not be posted to public mailing lists for reasons of > > >attorney-client privilege. > > > > Please could you elaborate on whom this secrecy is intended to > > protect, and in what way? > > > > I thought attorney-client privilege was a mechanism intended to > > protect sensitive information disclosed by the client to the attorney > > (facilitating honest and open communication without the client having > > to worry about information being leaked to enemies, competitors or the > > authorities). Assuming this is the case, it seems a bit strange that > > the request for secrecy should be coming from the *attorney*'s side... > > > > I could well be talking bollocks here, and I apologise in advance if > > that's the case, but I have to say that that's the inference I got. > > Clarification welcome. > > (Standard IANAL lawyer disclaimers apply) > > I thought that attorney-client privilege was something invoked (is that > the right word?) by the client. The attorney can only invoke it if the > information he is being asked to reveal somehow reveals some protected > information of the client. I would think that since SPI is the client, > they can unilaterally decide to make the information public. Everything said here is correct, the client is free to wave attorney client privilege whenever they like. However, a lawyer is correct to advise a client not to do so, because it can never be "unwaived." If the information in question were to be shared on d-l, it would pass beyond the protection and become available to everyone, including those who may someday attempt to sue debian, SPI, or a related 3rd party. So, from the lawyer's perspective, it is a matter of client-attorney privilege. SPI now has to make the decision that full disclosure to the public via d-l is worth the potential risk of losing that protection. My guess would be the lawyer has done the research on how one could bring suit against Debian/SPI/3rd party and disclosure would be like handing a roadmap to "the enemy." You generally want to make the cost of bringing suit against you as high as possible to warred off long-shot litigation. This is the difference between the threat of liability and the threat of litigation. The lawyer may be convinced there will not be liability, but litigation itself is expensive, even if you win. Making it that much easier for a plaintiff to file suite, because you've given him all the research, is generally considered a bad idea. -Sean Disclaimer: I am all but licensed in California, but not yet. Even if I were, the above does not constitute legal advice as it does not contain specific facts. -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Java in Debian advice result
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:10:33PM +, Andrew Saunders wrote: > On 2/28/07, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >to summarize the situation here. SPI's attorney has asked that his > >messages not be posted to public mailing lists for reasons of > >attorney-client privilege. > > Please could you elaborate on whom this secrecy is intended to > protect, and in what way? > > I thought attorney-client privilege was a mechanism intended to > protect sensitive information disclosed by the client to the attorney > (facilitating honest and open communication without the client having > to worry about information being leaked to enemies, competitors or the > authorities). Assuming this is the case, it seems a bit strange that > the request for secrecy should be coming from the *attorney*'s side... > > I could well be talking bollocks here, and I apologise in advance if > that's the case, but I have to say that that's the inference I got. > Clarification welcome. > (Standard IANAL lawyer disclaimers apply) I thought that attorney-client privilege was something invoked (is that the right word?) by the client. The attorney can only invoke it if the information he is being asked to reveal somehow reveals some protected information of the client. I would think that since SPI is the client, they can unilaterally decide to make the information public. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Java in Debian advice result
On 2/28/07, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: to summarize the situation here. SPI's attorney has asked that his messages not be posted to public mailing lists for reasons of attorney-client privilege. Please could you elaborate on whom this secrecy is intended to protect, and in what way? I thought attorney-client privilege was a mechanism intended to protect sensitive information disclosed by the client to the attorney (facilitating honest and open communication without the client having to worry about information being leaked to enemies, competitors or the authorities). Assuming this is the case, it seems a bit strange that the request for secrecy should be coming from the *attorney*'s side... I could well be talking bollocks here, and I apologise in advance if that's the case, but I have to say that that's the inference I got. Clarification welcome. Cheers, -- Andrew Saunders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free art license, CC and DFSG
Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would like to map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in Debian. So I red some threads but I didn't find any final answer, are CC 3.0[2] (and which one?) and free art license okay with the DFSG[3]? Regards etc. [1] http://www.stepmania.com/ [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00131.html
