Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from -legal I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion. See http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not sure if I would charcterize my analysis as including major objections, but rather some concerns. I explicitly stated that I did n ot actually find DFSG problems, although two complicated portions were not analyized. So I would say I had concerns but not nessisrally objections. Nevertheless, I would also say that my post is hardly consensus. So while no major objections may have been raised on list, it is also true that there is no real consenus that the licence in its current draft from does meet the DFSG. Impling that it does to the FSF is not a great idea. IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license
Hi, I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game called "Which Way Is Up?" ( http://hectigo.net/puskutraktori/whichwayisup/ ) and maintain it. All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0. All the game content, sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ ). As I understand, CC-by 3.0 is DFSG-free. The only potentially DFSG-freeness problem I can see is the DRM limitation, and then again GNU FDL also has it and is perfectly DFSG according to the last GR about it. Anyway, I prefer to ask about it first: Does anyone know if CC-by 3.0 is DFSG-free or not for sure, shall I go ahead and put it in the repositories? Greetings and thanks, Miry
Re: Bug#383316: Please vet this modified CC license for uploading FoF music to non-free (was: Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto?)
"Jason Spiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/15/07, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... How about: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d. added saying: You may not publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work except as part of the game and you may not distribute the Work except with the intention of it being used with the Game. and 1. g.: "The Game" means the game Frets on Fire or a derivative work of Frets on Fire. Dear debian-legal, The license is below. Is it good enough for Tommi Inkila's FoF music to be uploaded to non-free? I do not personally see any distribution problems with this licence. The only possible (general) issue is the exact definition of the game "Frets on fire". Does that alow minor derivitives that use the same name? (That is what Debian would be distributing, most likely, as Debian packages often include patches against the source code). It would be nice if this would be expanded to include all derivitves of FoF. However, even just expansion to include all derivitives of FoF that retain the same game style (that is to say are still Guitar Hero clones), would be an improvment. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license
On May 31, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, I prefer to ask about it first: Does anyone know if CC-by 3.0 is > DFSG-free or not for sure, shall I go ahead and put it in the repositories? The ftpmasters do. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:13:25 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: > > "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections > >from > -legal > > > >I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion. > >See http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I'm not sure if I would charcterize my analysis as including major > objections, but rather some concerns. > I explicitly stated that I did n ot actually find DFSG problems, > although two complicated portions were not analyized. > So I would say I had concerns but not nessisrally objections. I am sorry for not being clear enough: I meant to refer to the *thread* that started from your message, not just to your message. I now realize that, unfortunately, the rest thread was on the next month and hence is not linked by the web archives! I apologize, the rest of the thread starts here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg1.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpfEsqibab2n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:47:37 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote: > Hi, > > I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game [...] > All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0. Good. > All the game content, > sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 > Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ ). Ouch! :-( > > As I understand, CC-by 3.0 is DFSG-free. My personal opinion is that *none* of CC-v3.0 licenses meets the DFSG. They are *not* acceptable, IMO. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00024.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00023.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html and the threads that followed. > The only potentially > DFSG-freeness problem I can see is the DRM limitation, and then again > GNU FDL also has it and is perfectly DFSG according to the last GR > about it. I see other DFSG-freeness issues in CC-v3.0 licenses besides the anti-DRM clause, but anyway GR-2006-001 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001) did *not* decide anything about CC licenses, nor about license clauses in general. The decision taken by GR-2006-001 was just about the GFDL, which was (absurdly, IMO) judged acceptable (when no part of the work is unmodifiable/unremovable), without explaining why. > > Anyway, I prefer to ask about it first: Does anyone know if CC-by 3.0 > is DFSG-free or not for sure, shall I go ahead and put it in the > repositories? I personally think CC-v3.0 licensed works should *not* enter Debian main. IANADD, IANAL. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpzvIVDwCIxs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#426960: bitstormlite: GPL application (indirectly) linking to OpenSSL
Package: bitstormlite Version: 0.2k-1 Severity: serious Justification: license incompatibility The bitstormlite package currently in archive, 0.2k-1, links to libcurl4-openssl, and therefore indirectly links to libssl. Since bitstormlite is licensed under GPL with no exceptions, I believe there is an license incompatibility and the binary package is undistributable as is. Maybe just building depend on libcurl4-gnutls-dev and therefore linking to libcurl4-gnutls will solve the problem, but I didn't test. In any case, libcurl3-dev is no longer a real package and shouldn't be used as build dependency. This is the first time I report a bug about licensing issue, and I am not sure I am understanding everything correctly. Therefore I am cc:ing debian-legal list for confirmation. Ming 2007.05.31 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License concerns regarding package lft
Hello Debian Legal, I stumbled upon a package, lft, and noticed that the distributed packaged was somewhat of age. I looked it up and found quite updated source at the program developers webpage [1]. So I pondered over why this is not included; maybe the package maintainer is just asleep. Then I found the license [2], and thought that might be the fault. Following that I checked the license included in the ordinary Debian package, distributed in main. I now noticed that they are alike, which prompted this message. I'm running Debian Etch and this is the output of dpkg -s lft: Package: lft Status: install ok installed Priority: optional Section: net Installed-Size: 88 Maintainer: Vince Mulhollon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Architecture: i386 Version: 2.2-3 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-21), libpcap0.7 Description: layer-four traceroute lft sends various TCP SYN and FIN probes (differing from Van Jacobson's UDP-based method) utilizing the IP protocol "time to live" field and attempts to elicit an ICMP TIME_EXCEEDED response from each gateway along the path to some host. lft also listens for various TCP and ICMP messages along the way to assist network managers in ascertaining per-protocol heuristic routing information and can optionally retrieve various information about the networks it traverses. . Homepage: http://www.mainnerve.com/lft/index.html This is the contents of /usr/share/doc/lft/copyright: This package was debianized by Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue Feb 11 11:54:28 CET 2003. It was downloaded from http://www.mainnerve.com/lft/ Upstream Author: MainNerve, Inc. Copyright: MainNerve Public License for Open Source -- Copyright (c) 2002 MainNerve, Inc. This MainNerve, Inc. Distribution (code and documentation) is made available to the open source community as a public service by MainNerve. Contact MainNerve at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for information on other licensing arrangements (e.g. for use in proprietary applications). Under this license, this Distribution may be modified and the original version and modified versions may be copied, distributed, publicly displayed and performed provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Modified versions are distributed with source code and documentation and with permission for others to use any code and documentation (whether in original or modified versions) as granted under this license; 2. if modified, the source code, documentation, and user run-time elements should be clearly labeled by placing an identifier of origin (such as a name, initial, or other tag) after the version number; 3. users, modifiers, distributors, and others coming into possession or using the Distribution in original or modified form accept the entire risk as to the possession, use, and performance of the Distribution; 4. this copyright management information (software identifier and version number, copyright notice and license) shall be retained in all versions of the Distribution; 5. MainNerve may make modifications to the Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy, distribute, publicly display, and perform such modifications, including making such modifications available under this or other licenses, without obligation or restriction; 6. modifications incorporating code, libraries, and/or documentation subject to any other open source license may be made, and the resulting work may be distributed under the terms of such open source license if required by that open source license, but doing so will not affect this Distribution, other modifications made under this license or modifications made under other MainNeve licensing arrangements; 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under conditions of this license; 8. the name of MainNerve may not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to Distribution of the software without specific, prior written permission. This software is made available "as is", and MAINNERVE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL MAINNERVE BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. Section 7 seems suspicious. Cheers, -- Martin Millnert
