Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <200901191340.03678.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg > writes > >On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > >> In message <200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg > >> writes > >> >Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add > >> >disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too > >> >"matter-of-factly" for some d-l participents, leading those who > >> >disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of "giving legal advice," > >> >which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) > >> >without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the > >> >disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but > >> >because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal > >> >advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say "you > >> >should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice". > >> >It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said > >> >advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for > >> >malpractice and praciting without a license. > >> > >> Are you an American? (I think you are) > > > >I am... is this a problem? > > No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are > telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have > only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so > again. That's a shame. It's a very lovely country, with lots to see and do. I don't think I've ever been to a country that I could categorically state I would never wish to return. I hesitate to wonder what horrible thing we must have done to earn such hate from you. I hope some day you reconsider and come visit us in all of our many triumphs and failures. > >> Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is > >> posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me > >> certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat > >> parochial (and ludicrous). > > > >I'm not entirely certain why the fact that the list is international > >means anything? The individuals who participate live *somewhere* and > >the laws of those somewheres apply. Everyone who participates on this > >list subjects themselves, in part, to the laws of those they reply to. > >Yes, there are jurisdictional issues, but that's different from the law > >itself. > > That's called "extra-territoriality", which is frowned upon in most > civilised jurisdictions ... I honestly don't know what you are talking about here... I do know that Germany, for example, has a universal jurisdiction statute for human rights violations, allowing them to bring suit against anyone, anywhere, for violation of that statute. Of course, you've got a problem with enforcement, but you are still certainly breaking the German law if you commit human rights violations beyond their territory. Is Germany not a civilized jurisdiction? > >> No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try > >> to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign > >> nations and nationals. > > > >I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the > >United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in > >violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's > >laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as > >"irrelevant"... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder > >what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another > >with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license > >even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to > >someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled > >into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law > >not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA > >court under their own laws. > > But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? > Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could > be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been > anywhere near Utah. Nope, in the federal system a state can enforce the laws of another state if it so chooses. It's not required to, and in practice, most folks would remove the case to federal jurisdiction. But with federal removal, you've got a Federal Court, applying a state law, against a resident of a different state. Happens all the time. Now, I didn't do very much international law during law school (I focused on intellectual property... surprise, surprise). But, I seem to recall there are instances where a foreign court applies the laws of another country. Of course, you've got to have the right sort of treaties i
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message <200901191340.03678.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg writes On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message <200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg writes >Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add >disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too >"matter-of-factly" for some d-l participents, leading those who >disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of "giving legal advice," >which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) >without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the >disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but >because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal >advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say "you >should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice". >It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said >advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for >malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) I am... is this a problem? No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so again. Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). I'm not entirely certain why the fact that the list is international means anything? The individuals who participate live *somewhere* and the laws of those somewheres apply. Everyone who participates on this list subjects themselves, in part, to the laws of those they reply to. Yes, there are jurisdictional issues, but that's different from the law itself. That's called "extra-territoriality", which is frowned upon in most civilised jurisdictions ... No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as "irrelevant"... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Mind you, if that's the case, maybe that's why Americans think American law can be enforced outside their own borders, if State law can be enforced outside of a state's borders. Not entirely certain what an Italian court would make of the claim of violating U.S. laws on the subject. He might get of free; I don't think it would be pretty. But, by all means, stick your head in the ground and complain about American parochialism, it's realy no skin off my knees. Incedently, as far as I can tell, the UK doesn't have the same sort of blanked practice requirement as the United States does, but it does have some areas of law that require you to certified as one of four different types of legal professionals. I didn't bother to look it up, because I don't honestly care -- whatever it is, it's going to be less strict than the rules I must follow -- but perhaps you might want to look it up, since you are so certain my suggestion about legal advice does not apply to you. As far as I am aware, UK rules basically forbid TRADING as a professional if you are not professionally qualified. To give a simple example, I can instruct anybody how to drive - in the UK we have something called a "provisional driving licence" which allows people to drive with various restrictions on what they're allowed to do. What I CANNOT do is charge someone for teaching them, unless I'm qualified to do so. With the exception of medicine, I think that's true for pretty much ALL the regulated professions. Actually - the requirements for practising law are less strict than that! My mother is a qualified Secretary (that's not a typist - it's a qualification that allows her to practice a
Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
[Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] -=| MJ Ray, Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:15:21PM + |=- > Damyan Ivanov wrote: > [...] > > The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source --> > > object code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime > > and used in the user interface. > > > > Does this sound like "a mere aggregation"? > > Yes, in my opinion. If you can change the icons at runtime without > ill-effect (within reason - it's OK if the new icons must be the same > size, for example) and it's just that they're in the same tar volume, > that seems like mere aggregation to me. > > See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > > I suggest that the icons are used only as runtime data and no > information is interchanged with them. > > Hope that explains, It does indeed. Thank you all for helping me put the pieces together. -- damJabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using NASA Imagery
* Hendrik Weimer [090120 19:13]: > I just asked someone working on international copyright law. The key > point is that you always have to apply the law of the country where > you want to distribute the work (principle of national treatment, > "Schutzlandprinzip" in German). So, while there is no copyright on > NASA images in the US, it is still protected by the respective laws in > any country that has signed the Berne convention or a similar > international treaty. > I am not sure whether this makes it non-free, though. The DSFG do not > mention that the rules have to apply worldwide. Also, the GPLv2 > explicitely allows geographical limitations. While I also see no specific problem with some countries having problems with specific software, this looks like US government made works miss permissions even to copy and distribute in practically everywhere outside the USA. (After all, Debian has mirrors in many countries and there are people selling the CDs and DVDs everywhere). If this is the case, then I guess we have quite an big problem, as I guess such code and especially data is to be found in quite a large amount of places. I guess the problem gets even bigger as people consider them public domain so do not properly record the author. (And the question who is the copyright holder might even be quite complex. I'd guess most juristictions consider it to be an equivalent of work for hire, so the copyright outside the US might actually be in the hands of some organisational unit of the USA). On the other hand, waiting till someone sues will not make the situation much easier (though if it really is only one copyright holder for everything, it could wait until it gets profiable...) Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
"Bernhard R. Link" writes: > * Don Armstrong [090117 20:01]: >> Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it >> produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of >> public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to >> figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] > > I know this is general accepted knowledge, but has anyone ever asked > a layer knowledgable in international copyright law about it? I just asked someone working on international copyright law. The key point is that you always have to apply the law of the country where you want to distribute the work (principle of national treatment, "Schutzlandprinzip" in German). So, while there is no copyright on NASA images in the US, it is still protected by the respective laws in any country that has signed the Berne convention or a similar international treaty. I am not sure whether this makes it non-free, though. The DSFG do not mention that the rules have to apply worldwide. Also, the GPLv2 explicitely allows geographical limitations. Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
Damyan Ivanov wrote: > [Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] [...] > In the case I am after, both "works" are in the same upstream tarball, > and in the same .deb. > > The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source --> object > code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime and used > in the user interface. > > Does this sound like "a mere aggregation"? Yes, in my opinion. If you can change the icons at runtime without ill-effect (within reason - it's OK if the new icons must be the same size, for example) and it's just that they're in the same tar volume, that seems like mere aggregation to me. See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation "Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged)." I suggest that the icons are used only as runtime data and no information is interchanged with them. 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
[Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] -=| Walter Landry, Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 05:08:14AM -0800 |=- > MJ Ray wrote: > > Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > > Most of the code is licensed under "the same terms as Perl > > > itself", > > [...] > > > In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some > > > more icons are licensed under GPL-2. > > > > > > From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for the main code, that > > > still leaves the combination of GPL-2 (code and some .png icons) and > > > LGPL-3+ (.png icons). Is such aggregation OK? > > > > If it's mere aggregation, I believe each stays under their own licence. > > Just to be clear, if it is not mere aggregation, then it is not ok. > If the LGPL-3+ icons are required for the program to operate > correctly, that is a hint that licenses need to be compatible with > GPL-2. Reading GPL-2, "mere aggregation" is when two independent "works" sit on the same "volume of a storage or distribution medium". In the case I am after, both "works" are in the same upstream tarball, and in the same .deb. The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source --> object code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime and used in the user interface. Does this sound like "a mere aggregation"? -- damJabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
