Re: Internet2 licence
Le mercredi 02 septembre 2009 à 16:03 +0200, Carsten Wolff a écrit : Hi, I have a project here based on code under the Internet2 license and I was wondering, if it is any different from the 3-clause BSD license. If it's no different, can I leave out the additional explanatory section (You are under no obligation[..]in binary and source code form.) in derivative work and just license the whole derivative under BSD? It is very different since this additional section makes it a copyleft license, which makes it incompatible with most other copyleft licenses. You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any enhancements to Internet2 or its contributors. If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to otherwise publish or distribute your enhancements, in source code form without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement for such enhancements, then you thereby grant Internet2 and its contributors a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to install, use, modify, prepare derivative works, incorporate into the software or other computer software, distribute, and sublicense your enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form. The “Internet2 and its contributors” choice of words is poor, but otherwise it sounds like a reasonable and free copyleft license. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: License of CORBA Interface Definition Files published by the Object Management Group
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ludovic Brenta a écrit : Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Le mardi 25 août 2009 à 02:52 +0200, Ludovic Brenta a écrit : The source package orbit2_2.14.17.orig.tar.gz shipped by Debian contains the following files that concern me: src/idl/CORBA_PIDL/CORBA_Request.idl src/idl/CORBA_PIDL/pseudo_orb.idl [snip] The debian/copyright file in the package does not explicitly state a license for those files but implies that the license is the GPL. The package is in main. My opinion is that the headers themselves are not subject to copyright. They are just the formal description of a specification, there is nothing creative in them. However the comments are, so maybe we have to strip the comments from those files. Thanks. Since: - the spec specifically refers to the .idl files - the .idl files are derived works from the spec, I still think that the .idl files are copyrighted and subject to the same license as the spec. However, your interpretation is probably closer to the intended purpose of these files. The OMG failed to make their intentions clear. I don't think they understood copyright law themselves since they speak of using the specification and conforming software to the specification, neither of which are even concepts in copyright law, which concerns itself only with distribution, modification and derived works. So, the OMG's failure to clarify the license for the .idl files is not surprising. It seems to me that if the authors of a CORBA implementation choose to distribute .idl files (even though this is not a requirement of a conforming implementation), they can do so only if they are the authors of the .idl files; and if they are the authors of the .idl files then they can choose whatever license they want under the permission to use the specification which I understand as permission to derive works from the copyrighted specification. This may or may not be the case for the authors of orbit2 but the authors of PolyORB have already stated that they redistribute the OMG's .idl files (and they even pointed me to the OMG license). I think such redistribution is illegal. Any other opinion? Hi, I'm sorry I can't help on such problems. It is very far from my understanding. Can't we just use the testsuite apart from package building to be sure that our packaging is OK and then distribute a version without the .idl files ? Testing should be our duty and not for the buildd machines ? My two cents... xavier PS:any comment on my last changes (minors) ? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqffMMACgkQVIZi0A5BZF7+zQCgxCwGH2fKlCZGdeFyXhYF4tF5 ATsAn3j9aF86b9IS1Rd/80URBut0pNdx =et0p -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Internet2 licence
Hi Josselin, thanks for your answer! On Thursday 03 September 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: It is very different since this additional section makes it a copyleft license, which makes it incompatible with most other copyleft licenses. I see. It seems I completely misread that section. I see now, why it's not just explanatory, but actually makes it a copyleft license. The “Internet2 and its contributors” choice of words is poor, but otherwise it sounds like a reasonable and free copyleft license. This means, a program under this license is fit for the main section of Debian? Thanks again, Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License of CORBA Interface Definition Files published by the Object Management Group
Selon xavier grave xavier.gr...@ipno.in2p3.fr: Can't we just use the testsuite apart from package building to be sure that our packaging is OK and then distribute a version without the .idl files ? Testing should be our duty and not for the buildd machines ? We will do that for sure but there are other .idl files required to build, not just test, the CORBA personality (see Thomas Quinot's email on polyorb-us...@lists.adacore.com). In the mean time, let's focus on the legal aspects on this list. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
