Re: SGI Free SW license 1.1 compatability with Xfree86 style license
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Henning> That is a very broad clause: "Recipient will .. indemnify > > Henning> .. SGI from, .. any loss ... arising out of Recipient's use > > Henning> .. of the Covered Code". That seems to mean that if I use > > Henning> the software in a business that competes successfully with > > Henning> SGI, they could sue me and demand that I pay up for their > > Henning> lost profits. [...] > Which of the words I quoted do not come from the original clause? > Which of my "..."s do you think cover somthing that makes my reading > false? Unfortunately, the term "indemnify" has (at least) two distinct meanings: From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: Indemnify \In*dem"ni*fy\ (?), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Indemnified (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Indemnifying (?).] [L. indemnis unhurt (in- not + damnum hurt, damage) + -fy. Cf. Damn, Damnify.] 1. To save harmless; to secure against loss or damage; to insure. The states must at last engage to the merchants here that they will indemnify them from all that shall fall out. --Sir W. Temple. 2. To make restitution or compensation for, as for that which is lost; to make whole; to reimburse; to compensate. --Beattie. Generally, in my limited and armchair experience, licenses and warranty statements mean "indemnify" in sense 1). However I would very much hate to be on the losing site of a court case and hear a judge tell me it means 2)... Perhaps one of the resident amateur legal eagles can clarify this in the contexts of contract law or tort theory. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux|Exercise your freedom of religion. Set [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fire to a church of your choice. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | PGP signature
Re: About MPEG2 and DVDs
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 10:53:45PM +0200, Samuel Hocevar wrote: > - implement a brute force algorithm that has been found and which > lets you crack the CSS key of a single disk in a few seconds. I think > this one would be legal everywhere, but not sure. Of course it wouldn't be legal. Not in the United MPAA States of America. Rant aside, I get the feeling that the trial that begins tomorrow in the Southern District of New York will play a not insignificant part in determining the answer to this question, as far as the US is concerned. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux|kernel panic -- causal failure [EMAIL PROTECTED] |universe will now reboot http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | PGP signature
Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:10:04AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Note however, that a "you must change the name of modified versions" > > > clause is not unproblematic, > > > Do what several maintainers have already done - release under a modified > > name. (See nowebm, for example.) > > It's a possible solution from Debian's point of view. But it is not > likely to be what the author intends to achieve by using such a license. That's *their* problem. The "you must change the name of modified versions" clause is obnoxious and impractical. -- G. Branden Robinson | Experience should teach us to be most on Debian GNU/Linux| our guard to protect liberty when the [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government's purposes are beneficent. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Louis Brandeis PGP signature
Re: Licence of SteelBlue
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 12:05:27PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > Essentially GPL says: > > > > 1) you must give your source to those you give binaries, but > > 2) you must give your rights to everyone. > > I understood, that you have only give rights to all these, that receive > source or binaries directly or indirectly by you. > > If I modify some program written by you. And give it only give it persons, > from which I know, they will not distribute it further. (Wihtout me > forcing them to or making a licence "you are only allowed to use, when > ...". Would I have to give rights of the modified form to you? The "rights" in question are copyright. Authors retain copyright in derived works whether or not they know about them. You get your own copyright on your modifications when they are sufficiently novel to qualify as an original work of their own. There are few hard and fast rules for determining this; it's typically determined by agreement between the parties, or a court case. The GPL, however, does not compel you to distribute your modifications back to the author specifically. If you distribute source with your binaries, you do not have to give your modifications to anyone in particular. If you do not distribute source with your binaries, then you must give the source to any third party who requests them within a period of 3 years after your distribution of the binaries. See the GPL more info. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you have the slightest bit of Debian GNU/Linux| intellectual integrity you cannot [EMAIL PROTECTED] | support the government. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- anonymous PGP signature
Re: again: blackened copyright
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 11:17:24AM +0200, Joost van Baal wrote: > Last week, I posted the message below to debian-legal. Didn't get > any response, however. Am I missing something really obvious? If > so, could someone please bang me on my head for it? > > Am I just stuck, with this upstream maintainer not responding? Is > there no other way than to contact the maintainer, to get around the > copyright issue? If blackened uses the same code that was relicensed, then you should be able to replace the copyright notice on your own. For instance, when UC Berkeley relicensed all the BSD-licensed it possessed to remove the advertising clause, this relicensing instantaneously propagated among all licensees (i.e., people with the code). UC Berkeley did not, and does not, need to contact each licensee individually to modify their terms. What remains for you to do is establish that the ircii code in blackened is the same code that was relicensed by its author. This should be easy enough with a visual comparison of the two source archives. -- G. Branden Robinson |Software engineering: that part of Debian GNU/Linux|computer science which is too difficult [EMAIL PROTECTED] |for the computer scientist. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | PGP signature
Re: Request for IPR review
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > > > I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of > > > > > the new OASIS[1] IPR draft. I tried to review it myself, but the legalese > > > is a bit on the opaque side for me. > > [...] > > > Can anyone who is interested in reviewing the document please contact me? > > > I'll send you the document for a quick review. > > > > Did anyone get in touch with you about this? > > Hi Branden, > > Yes, I did get a an initial response from MJRay and sent him the document. But > am still waiting for some follow-up feedback on the document itself. You might want to put out a renewed call, then. Perhaps MJ got swamped. (I know I sometimes do.) -- G. Branden Robinson| I am only good at complaining. Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Dan Jacobson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
anonymity and copyright in the U.S. (was: Need to Identify Contributions and the Dissident Test)
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:36:40PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Copyright notices can use aliases, right? I don't know anything > > about how enforcable that renders that person's copyright claim, but > > I don't think it renders the license invalid. > > At least in the US, the copyright would still be enforceable if they > actually wrote the software, since a copyright notice is no longer > required. (Well, ignoring the effect upon statutory damages.) > > However, an improper copyright + licensing notice could make the > license itself invalid (or at least questionable) since it wouldn't be > a clear statement from the copyright holder that they licensed a work > appropriately. Any Stephen King fans here? Anyone have access to any copies of his Richard Bachman novels from before it was disclosed that Richard Bachman was a nom de plume of Stephen King? As should be well-known, Stephen King is a money machine. I find it hard to believe he'd have published under a pen name if to do so would have meant exposing himself to claims of fraudulent copyright. For a more recent example, see the novel _Primary Colors_[1]. [1] http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/primary_colors.htm -- G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
a right to privacy is not in the DFSG, therfore you don't have one
Your papers are not in order, citizen...
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:04:25PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> All in all, I think that Branden's fifth freedom[1] is important, and
> should come into play here. Privacy in one's person includes fundamental
[...]
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/06/msg00096.html
Ah, but my fifth freedom is not in the DFSG, so under the nouveau scheme
of license analysis that some would have us apply, we are morally obliged
to completely disregard it.
Thanks for the props, however. I continue to believe that a DFSG analysis
is the *beginning* of a process of understanding whether something is free
software or not, not a substitute for the whole thing. Certain well-known
people in the project have stridently insisted to me, however, that this
opinion puts me into an extremely small minority.
I think signify[1] has shown artificial intelligence again -- there is
indeed a tension between the literal-minded DFSG fundamentalists ("if the
DFSG doesn't mention it, it must be free") and those who actually cogitate
openly about what the DFSG was written to defend, and how it's going to
take more than a list propositions recited by rote to uphold our freedoms.
What is the virtue that DFSG strict constructionists are upholding? Low
mailing list traffic? Developer laziness? Ignorance of legal issues that
affect the work we do? The spread of Debian main across as many UDFs as
possible in the next release?
Are these things really more important to us than freedom?
[1] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/signify
--
G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who
Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:28:24PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft > summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have > been: Thanks for doing this. I read it carefully and it's a very nice document. I think it reflects very well on you and the other contributors, in stark contrast to some of the incredibly snarky and spiteful things that have been said about its authors on -vote and a few other places lately. This kind of document, which spells out our concerns while being -- in my view -- perfectly respectful of the upstream promulgators of the licenses, is a good reflection on debian-legal and by extension the entire project. Good work. Don't let the -legal haters get you down. -- G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ITP: xengine
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 09:50:47AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: > I see from Atsuhito Kohda's message that it is indeed meant to be DFSG free. > Please get the author to change the licence to this: > > Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software, > documentation, images, etc. is granted without charge, provided that > this comment and the author's name is retained. The author assumes no > responsibility for lost sleep as a consequence of use of this software. > > or else use the BSD licence, which has exactly the same effect and has the > advantage of being well understood. Better yet, the MIT license, which avoids any accidental inclusion of an advertising clause. -- G. Branden Robinson | Optimists believe we live in the best of Debian GNU/Linux | all possible worlds. Pessimists are [EMAIL PROTECTED] | afraid the optimists are right. cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgp007F2OjA6z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpstrans copyright
On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 08:08:48AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > I concur. Once the author has said "public domain" he has promised not > to sue anybody over anything they do to the work; with the explicit > exception about removing the copyright notice. You can't do that. If you state that something of yours is in the public domain, you have abandoned your claim of copyright. It is only copyright which permits you to implement licensing terms (well, patents do as well but I assume they don't apply here). The license is fundamentally self-contradictory and meaningless. Someone very badly needs to speak with him and educate him on these issues. As it stands, his work probably reverts to the default copyright state...his, with all rights reserved. -- G. Branden Robinson |You should try building some of the Debian GNU/Linux |stuff in main that is modern...turning [EMAIL PROTECTED] |on -Wall is like turning on the pain. cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |-- James Troup pgp9XXRymKKPB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Corel's apt frontend
Hi Culus, I spent about an hour today talking to Nicholas from Corel at their booth here at ALS, and had a chance to take a look at their GUI packaging utility. It's called get_it. It is also linked against both libqt and libapt-pkg. According to the copyright for apt 0.3.13, evrything is under the GPL, and not the LGPL. As we all know (except Corel, of course), linking an app against both a QPL'ed lib and a GPL'ed lib doesn't work. Corel says they will be in contact with you but I thought would let you know about this. I can think of at least 3 things that can be done: 1) you could add a special permission clause to the apt copyright permitting linking against Qt; 2) you could change the license on libapt-pkg to LGPL; 3) we could let Troll Tech deal with it and hope they dual license Qt under the GPL (not likely I guess). It's your code so it your call. There are likely to be other apps in this boat in Corel's version of Linux. Sorry this mail isn't more informative but it's very difficult to write well from a busy booth, and I won't have access to my mail again until Sunday evening at the earliest. -- G. Branden Robinson |If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Debian GNU/Linux |pound of antipasto, would they cancel [EMAIL PROTECTED] |out, leaving him still hungry? cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |-- Scott Adams pgpekQy8O1i8K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Corel's apt frontend
On Sat, Oct 16, 1999 at 01:12:42PM -0700, Bruce J. Perens wrote: > (scrawling on the screen of my Palm-Pilot) > > DO NOT LGPL, that would let them make the front-end non-free. Qt > exception is fine. Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Is there a form of non-free they could get away with that wouldn't force them to pay royalties to Troll Tech, though? If not, I hardly see them creating a new, unforseen expense for themselves at this stage. It is ultimately Jason's decision, though. He could decide to do neither and leave Corel in a nice big quandary. :) Yeah, that's it, if Jason plays Mr. Stubborn, Corel will HAVE to go to Troll Tech AS and try to get them to dual-license Qt under the GPL as well. Surely there is someone at TT who can be bargained, threatened or bought into submission. :) -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Mob rule isn't any prettier just because [EMAIL PROTECTED] | you call your mob a government. cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgpmdwkvuoQwo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Corel's apt frontend
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 10:44:11PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > They actually did email me, so we can do something now.. I said I'd add an > exclusion for QT/QPL or something - but I really don't know what a > practical wording for such an exclusion would be. What Bruce said looked reasonable to me, but I think it would be good if a legally savvy team of paranoiacs went over it. Troll's refusal to license Qt under the GPL and then have a different license for those who want to hide their source code is apparently nothing more than an act of spite against the free software community (perhaps compounded by ignorance of licensing issues and emotional reactions to flames in their mailboxes). I therefore think it would be a good idea to minimize the amount of satisfaction Troll Tech can derive from other people contorting themselves and their licenses just to use their product legally in free software. In other news, I should mention that Corel may not be out of the woods yet. The "get_it" binary was linked against *many* libraries, probably between 12 and 18, and I didn't recognize the names of everything they linked against. I seem to remember something called "libjscript" (a Javascript interpreter!?!). I did recognize most as being part of libc, apt, X, or KDE (the ones with "kde" in them, natch), but I am not familiar with all the commonly used KDE libs. It's quite possible Corel hauled in something else with licensing issues. I really wish now that I had mailed myself the output of ldd. :( I don't remember, though, if that particular laptop was connected to the net. One of them wasn't and I was busy giving Nicholas Blommesteijn a crash course in free software licensing issues. I think I was also experiencing internal distress from exposure to a Linux box that behaved far too much like Windows 95. By the way, "get_it" is a pretty lousy name for a binary. -- G. Branden Robinson |Convictions are more dangerous enemies Debian GNU/Linux |of truth than lies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Friedrich Nietzsche cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgpW6KSOxxZt0.pgp Description: PGP signature
proposed new /usr/share/doc/apt/copyright
Culus and I hammered this out over IRC. He seems to like it okay and it satisfies my paranoia, so it's time for other people to beat on it. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | The noble soul has reverence for itself. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | Apt is copyright 1997, 1998, 1999 Jason Gunthorpe. Unless otherwise noted, you may apply the terms of the GNU General Public License (the GPL), version 2.0 or later, published by the Free Software Foundation, to this program. See the file /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL or <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt> for the terms of the latest version of the GNU General Public License. In addition, apt may be distributed under terms identical to the above with the following exception: Works using apt may link against the GUI library "libqt", copyright by Troll Tech AS, Norway, provided that: 1. The version of "libqt" is under the terms of the "Q Public License", version 1.0, published by Troll Tech AS. See below or <http://www.troll.no/qpl/> for the text of the QPL, version 1.0. In the case of any variation in terms between the attached terms and the URL, the license terms terms identified as the QPL below are the only ones under which distribution of works derived from libapt-pkg.so are permitted. 2. The source code of the version of "libqt" used is a) Distributed with the binary version; OR b) Downloadable by anyone, without fee, using a publicly-announced URL on the Internet, for a duration of at least three years starting with distribution of the binary version. ___ The following text, up to the text of the Q Public License, is informational and not part of the license terms on apt. Modifications to apt in either source or compiled form must be licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0, but need not include the above exception for usage of the "libqt" library under the QPL. Note that removal of this exception will result in software which is not licensed for binary redistribution linked against software governed by the Q Public License. No part of apt is licensed under the QPL. The terms below are provided to help identify the circumstances under which the "libqt" library may be used with apt. ___ THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE version 1.0 Copyright (C) 1999 Troll Tech AS, Norway. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute this license document. The intent of this license is to establish freedom to share and change the software regulated by this license under the open source model. This license applies to any software containing a notice placed by the copyright holder saying that it may be distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0. Such software is herein referred to as the Software. This license covers modification and distribution of the Software, use of third-party application programs based on the Software, and development of free software which uses the Software. Granted Rights 1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, or software items that link with the Software, in any form signifies acceptance of this license. 2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed. 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software. b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. 4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided that you meet these restrictions: a. You must include this license document in the distribution. b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable
Re: proposed new /usr/share/doc/apt/copyright
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:21:50PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: > Or am I just confused and QPL 1.0 is the license applied to Qt 2.0 ? You were confused. QPL 1.0 applies to Qt "Free Edition" version 2.0. -- G. Branden Robinson |Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux |Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Chemistry is really physics. cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |Physics is really math. pgpJTo3xcAuWL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 7, 2000
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 11:18:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Mike Markley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > If I'm reading this snippet correctly, all it's saying is that the images > > and other data can't be distributed w/o the GPL'd source code. I'm not > > entirely sure on whether or not this fits w/the DFSG... glancing thru the > > DFSG I don't see why it's a problem. > > DFSG requires that modifications are permitted. One possible form of > modification would be to remove everything but the images and data > you talk about. > > > > The artwork and sounds used by Maelstrom are copyright Ambrosia Software > > > (http://www.ambrosiasw.com) and may not be redistributed separately from > > > the Maelstrom public GPL release. > > This language also prohibit more mundane forms of modifications. It > seems to me that even minor bugfixes are prohibited, because the > program is then not the "release" the note talks about. Apart from all that, the maelstrom source package cannot move into main until the non-free bits of it have been removed. I suggest the source package be split, and multiple binary packages (engine, sprites, sounds) be created. I suggest the latter because I remember from Macintosh days that people came up with all kinds of cool replacement sounds for Maelstrom, including a Simpsons-based one that way really funny. (Comets would appear, so Barney would belch, when your ship was destroyed, there would be an echoing "D'OH!" sound...) -- G. Branden Robinson|You don't just decide to break Kubrick's Debian GNU/Linux |code of silence and then get drawn away [EMAIL PROTECTED] |from it to a discussion about cough roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |medicine. pgpB099nvUb0V.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updating the OpenContent license
tention by the authors instead of publishing houses. I would like to think that ensuring free electronic distribution forever will help get us there, but I am not at all sure that it will. In any case, I think it is a value that stands on its own merits[3]. > Technical documentation is a different story. I agree that Open Content > technical documentation should, whereever possible, be released under a > license that allows for free distribution, modification, and > publication. But technical documentation is only one catagory of the > documents that could possibly be covered by the Open Publication > License. The OPL is, in my opinion, an excellent foundation for a more > generally usable license. Well, up to the point about license options, I agree. I think the exercise of either of those options changes the nature of the license so much that they should really be separated into a separate license. It would be convenient if most people who elect to exercise *either* of the options have, in practice, typically exercised both. This would make it possible to restrict ourselves to only two licenses. OPL without the options, and some as-yet-unnamed license with both "inlined" instead of optional. I won't, however, pretend to know any statisics that back up or refute my hopeful thesis. > It also has to be accepted that not everyone is going to release their > documents under a license that is acceptable to everyone. That's just > part of the game. We cannot _force_ authors to release their docs under > a certain license (or at all, for that matter), so why would we work to > eliminate valid licensing options in an effort to create a single > license? It's simply non-sensical, and completely goes against the > whole idea of "freedom" in terms of allowing an author's freedom of > choice. I think attempting to come up with one license to solve two very different classes of problems is doomed to failure. There is simply too much distinction between the purpose, style, and emotional investment made by author of a poem or novel as contrasted with the author of a Unix manual page. There are exceptions on both sides, of course -- but with a dual-license strategy, such exceptional people can simply elect to choose the "other" license. Finally, in my (limited compared to many participating in this discussion) experience, you don't get very far talking about freedom in the context of whose gets preserved and whose gets limited. Anyone who has seen a BSD/GPL flamewar can probably attest to this. I won't even attempt to rehash the different perspectives here. I strongly believe that a far more effective approach to licensing takes the form of a set of questions: "do you want people to be able to do X? Do you mind if Y happens?", and not some open-ended query like that asked of a Miss America Pageant contestant. A BSD advocate and a GPL advocate can both talk about promoting "freedom" and mean very different things. The best way to avoid these kinds of meme wars is to prevent them in the first place, and that means no "one size fits all" solutions. It is a fine line between oversimplification and proliferation. My assessment, based upon only a few years of participating in the free software community, is that we need no more licenses that we can count on one hand, and that, if we're going to propose multiple licenses at once, we need to consider the ramifications of people trying to intermix works under each of them. Determining how many possible intermixtures there are is a simple problem of combinatorics. How many can the average person keep in his or her head? -- that is perhaps the best gauge. People will, ultimately, attempt to do something you do not anticipate. If you systematically exhaust the possibilities in advance (no matter how unlikely you think some of them at the time), you stand a much better chance of drafting good licenses from the outset. Furthermore, you can identify at the very beginning what admixtures simply won't be allowed...say so unhesitatingly, and that will spare us all headaches down the road. Sorry for the length of this message. I've been ruminating about these issues for a while; hopefully I am able to contribute a worthwhile perspective. [1] Knuth's _TACP_ might be considered a strongly artistic work despite its highly technical content; this just illustrates that one man's art is another man's recipe, and is why I am in favor of letting the author choose one side of the fence or the other. (For that matter, I see no reason an author could not delimit sections -- even paragraphs -- of the same work under alternating licenses, if he or she is prepared for that degree of tedium.) [2] Can anyone tell me whose idea that was? I'd love to know. I have my suspicions but I'll keep my s
Re: Not for commercial use - non-free?
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:22:52PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF PARALLAX
> SOFTWARE CORPORATION ("PARALLAX"). PARALLAX, IN DISTRIBUTING THE CODE TO
> END-USERS, AND SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREIN, GRANTS A
> ROYALTY-FREE, PERPETUAL LICENSE TO SUCH END-USERS FOR USE BY SUCH END-USERS
> IN USING, DISPLAYING, AND CREATING DERIVATIVE WORKS THEREOF, SO LONG AS
> SUCH USE, DISPLAY OR CREATION IS FOR NON-COMMERCIAL, ROYALTY OR REVENUE
> FREE PURPOSES. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE END-USER USE THE COMPUTER CODE
> CONTAINED HEREIN FOR REVENUE-BEARING PURPOSES. THE END-USER UNDERSTANDS
> AND AGREES TO THE TERMS HEREIN AND ACCEPTS THE SAME BY USE OF THIS FILE.
> COPYRIGHT 1993-1999 PARALLAX SOFTWARE CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
>
> Non-commercial, royalty or revenue free - the end user shall not use the
> computer code for revenue-bearing purposes. Well, that qualifies it for
> non-free, but we can distribute it, right?
You dog, I was working on this one.
/me drops a smart mine in Joe's path
--
G. Branden Robinson| The first thing the communists do when
Debian GNU/Linux | they take over a country is to outlaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | cockfighting.
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks
pgpu5dLBrocoq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:32:00PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > If we DO need a license for the distribution, something short and to > the point (do whatever the hell you want with it, but don't sue us) > seems reasonable enough; I like Branden's license for the X packages > personally. Er, this is just the MIT license, with the names changed to protect the guilty. I can't claim credit for it. > === > Copyright 1996-2000 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. [...] > === > > In essence: Don't sue us, don't use SPI's name as an endorsement, but > otherwise go forth and multiply. Unfortunately, I think such a boilerplate on the distribution as a whole might seriously delude people. They might think that those terms apply to the GPL'ed software within. I'd hate for us to contribute to GPL violations by accident. I think the boilerplate aggregate license should the GPL. It will be correct in a large number of cases, and if people abide strictly by its terms, there is only a very small minority of packages whose license they could accidentally violate. But I do think that yes, we SHOULD apply an aggregation copyright and license terms. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux |If God had intended for man to go about [EMAIL PROTECTED] |naked, we would have been born that way. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgpFTYsG9bHKB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New OPL Draft
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:20:37AM -0700, David Wiley wrote: > As for the content of the license itself, we have seen several good > suggestions in the past few weeks. One is that the "publisher's name on the > cover" option does not apply to (what now constitutes) the majority of works > published under the OPL. I would like to recommend that this clause be moved > down to become a third option. That, in conjunction with the strategy of three licenses, is something I think I can get behind. > We have also read much about license proliferation and the confusion a I don't know if you're referencing my mail as well, but if you are, thanks. I got exactly zero feedback on it[1]. Even *my* ego won't let me believe a kind of Nixonian "Silent Majority" was at work there. :) > We should create three licenses which provide varying levels of freedom / > protection to the authors and publishers of documents. [snip] This proposal addresses my concerns admirably, and is something I think the Debian project could endorse. It's not yet well known outside the project, but we have recently created a new section of our archive called "data", which comprises non-executing data of any format. I think it may be possible to extend the DFSG[2] a little bit to permit information under RMS's libertarian license-in-development, as well as information under the "VPL" (Verbatim Publication License) as it applies to non-executing data. This would enable us to endorse as "free", not just "book" type works of an artistic bent, but also things like certain kinds of geographic data sets which could be staggeringly useful but which are not licensed for modification, and even fun things like game levels for Doom/Quake/Descent and such. Many level designers for games take artistic pride in their work -- quite justifiably in many cases -- and would like their textures, polymodels, sound effects, et al. to remain unaltered. I think an approach that enables us to welcome these people into the free software community unreservedly, with no risk of them being characterized as "bad citizens" just for taking this attitude towards their data, is a good thing. > What does everyone think? Needless to say, I speak only for myself; but if things finalize in a form fairly close to your proposal, I would undertake to draft a general resolution under the Debian constitution to embrace these changes. I am not sure that we can come out in full endorsement of the new OPL, given the ability of people to exercise options that could be perceived as pretty burdensome; but two out of three isn't bad. In any event, the new OPL will need a lot of scrutiny before anything too certain can be said. But your porposal is, in my opinion, a very large step in the right direction. > NEW OPL DRAFT (with language changes by corporate lawyers, but none of the > content changes recommended above) If section I.5. could be made section IV.1(c), then I do not find the OPL objectionable on general grounds (from my lay perspective). [1] I'd also like to hear some feedback from my fellow Debian developers. Feel free to restrict followups to debian-legal if you want. I just don't want to claim that all kinds of things are acceptable to Debian that, in fact, aren't[3]. [2] Or come up with a DFCG (Debian Free Content Guidelines) document, which would serve for the data section the same purpose the DFSG does for our main and contrib sections. [3] Inside joke: Bgurejvfr xabja nf "chyyvat n Wbfrcu Pnegre". :-C -- G. Branden Robinson|It's not a matter of alienating authors. Debian GNU/Linux |They have every right to license their [EMAIL PROTECTED] |software however we like. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |-- Craig Sanders, on debian-devel pgpNIltuKzWDZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New OPL Draft
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 10:11:41AM +, Terry Dawson wrote: > Branden, > You can count my vote as a "Please don't". [...] > I've never bought the argument that documentation is different from > software because documentation is more an expression of artistic work > than software. I don't believe this at all. To portray "games level > design" as an artistic form and software development as not, I believe, > is to denegrate software development as a form devoid of imagination, > creativity and inspiration. Is not the application itself the artistic > expression in the same way that it is the painting, not the brush > strokes that are the art of the canvas world? I think you are overly enamored of your own analogies, so much so that you're asserting a slippery slope argument with a JATO engine strapped to your back, but I'll take the "please don't" part under advisement. Ultimately, any Debian Free Content Guidelines (or whatever) we come up with, if we choose to do so, are going to have be based on fairly objective critera. Flowery language about artistic expression and brush strokes upon the canvas is well and good, but these concepts are subjectively evaluated. I wonder if you read my earlier remarks in this thread, where I asserted that one man's art is another man's recipe. Nowhere did I assert or imply that programs cannot be works of art. My premise is: qualification as art is *irrelevant* when it comes to the license evaluation process of the (for want of a better word) consumer of a work. For the author, considerations of art are likely to be paramount in guiding his or her selection of an appropriate license. Perhaps I did not make this point sufficiently clear. Any DFCL enterprise is necessarily going to have to restrict itself from making assertions about "artistic" versus "technical" intent, just as the existing DFSG does. What I propose boils down to this: Is it a candidate for main/contrib/non-free? If so, apply the DFSG. Is it a candidate for data? If so, apply the DFCG. Our archive layout will not allow a package to into both, say, main and data, so your aggravted relatvistic concerns about "what's non-executable data and what isn't" have already been addressed by an accepted amendment to policy. So I suggest you refocus that aspect of your grief upon milk that has already been spilt. You may read <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/38/38902.html> to see how the machete of practicality has already been taken to your garden of subjectivity. We decide first if a package is bound for data or not, before we worry about its license. What I suggest is that we may permit VPL (Verbatim Public License) works into data. It's far too early for me to crusade for this; my mind isn't made up. First I want to see if Open Content's attempt at license revision bears worthwhile fruit. Perhaps we will want to confine the data section to freely modifiable works (a la RMS's draft license). The important issue is: with the introduction of the data section, which won't contain software per se, we need a companion document to the DFSG that will determine what is acceptable for admission into that section and what is not. Finally, I think you need to reflect on why we consider the freedom of the user to modify and redistribute software our core principle. Is it so we can realize some collectivist utopia of artistic collaboration? No. It's because we want computer systems that work as we desire. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into laser [EMAIL PROTECTED] | with remaining eye. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgp9wB9aNSc8b.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New OPL Draft
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:11:09PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote: > I think it may be possible to extend the DFSG[2] a little bit to permit > information under RMS's libertarian license-in-development, > > I don't know of any conflict between any license I am developing and > the DFSG; if you think there is one, could you please tell me the > specifics? Sorry, I was unclear. I was including your forthcoming license in a list of content licenses. As I understand your proposed license, it has no problems falling within the existing DFSG. This is not true for some of the others; whether Debian wants to extend its penumbra in the manner I described is something that will have to be extensively discussed. I'd certainly like your input on this issue; I've seen statements from you in the past which I understood to mean that you don't regard things like game level data as being crucial for software freedom in the same way that algorithms and executable code are. Keith Packard of XFree86, for instance, thinks that we'll never see much in the way of high-quality fonts that are free software, because the problems are just too hard. He knows far more about digital typography than I do, so I didn't argue with him; but the basic rationale does sound familiar, doesn't it? "Free software is fine for things like compilers but it just won't work for applications; it's fine for applications but it will never produce a desktop; it's fine for desktop environments but it will never produce an office suite..." Free software has become so successful that the arguments about what it can and cannot accomplish are being held about things that arguably aren't software at all. Documentation, polymodels, sound effects, fonts -- we need a way to separate the free wheat from the proprietary chaff in all of these cases. > PS: Please don't decribe my work as "libertarian"--I disagree very > strongly with that political party. If I were referring to the Libertarian Party, I would have capitalized the "l". I am still aware of libertarianism as a concept separate from the label that some organization has adopted for itself. (See also "republican", "democratic", "catholic", etc.) It seemed an appropriate word to use for a license that permits the licensee broad latitude to copy, modify, and redistribute -- in other words, to exercise a large subset of the liberties he would enjoy if the licensed work were in the public domain. If I have made an error in my analysis on this level, please point it out to me; otherwise, I must stand by my choice of terminology, which is more or less congruent with the dictionary definition of the term. I'll keep in mind the potential confusion in the future, however, and might have to start reserving a footnote for it. -- G. Branden Robinson|Measure with micrometer, Debian GNU/Linux |mark with chalk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] |cut with axe, roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |hope like hell. pgpFc6ByasjOP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > (a) copyright law prevents copying of protected works without > permission from the copyright holder; (b) that permission to copy can > be given in a document, whether it is called a "license" or a > "permission notice" or whatever, so long as in substance it permits > copying; (c) if someone grants such permission, you can only copy in > compliance with the grant of permission; (d) XFree grants permission > to copy the code "subject to the following conditions: The above > copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all > copies or substantial portions of the Software." (e) The reference > to "this permission notice" in the above quote is to the license, > called a "permission notice" in the XFree source code files, which > permits copying XFree in the first place. (f) By requiring you to > include the license in the XFree code you distribute, that means that > license applies to the XFree code (but not any additional code) which > you distribute. (g) XFree code, or substantial portions thereof, > can only be redistributed under the XFree license. (h) If someone > adds code to XFree, they are free to license it under whatever terms > they choose, including a proprietary license, since XFree does not > have any requirements for code added to XFree by a third party. (i) > Point (h) above does not, however, change the license of the XFree > code, it only changes the permissions on the combined code. All correct, with the nitpicky point of s/XFree/XFree86/. But how you get from here to "the XFree86 [MIT] license is incompatible with the GPL" is quite beyond me. Kindly explain in words of one syllable, and please make an effort to keep your reply under 100 lines. And, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, please get your line lengths under control. -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to unlearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] | old falsehoods. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpyXqAu4o13o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New OPL Draft
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:57:14PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote: > As I understand your proposed license, it has no problems falling within > the existing DFSG. This is not true for some of the others; whether > Debian > wants to extend its penumbra in the manner I described is something that > will have to be extensively discussed. I'd certainly like your input on > this issue; > > I would be happy to give my opinion, once I see the specific issue. Do you believe it is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Free Software movement to accept any more restrictions on classes of computer-handled data that are not executable code than we do on executable code? -- G. Branden Robinson| You should try building some of the Debian GNU/Linux | stuff in main that is modern...turning [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on -Wall is like turning on the pain. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- James Troup pgp8ua89vTlO9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: x3270 licenses
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:14:52PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Well, I can't argue with that. But I'm happy for not being the > judge who - in these days of digital typesetting - must decide > when something is an alternative representation of a font and > when it is just a document which happens to contain every letter > in the alphabet and enough text to exhibit a selection of common > kerning pairs... There is jurisprudential precedent on this issue, at least in the United States.[*] It has been ruled that typefaces are not copyrightable, but fonts are. Note the difference. The typeface is what your eyes see. A font is a set of instructions, similar to a computer program, for generating a typeface given a set of input parameters. Things like hinted fonts are very complex indeed, as most of us know; the same font can produce quite distinct typefaces at 6 points and 36, for instance. Simple bitmapped fonts are not effectively copyrightable, IIRC. (All someone has to do is arrange for every glyph to be displayed, and then "reverse-engineer" it.) Video card manufacturers, for instance, cannot meaningfully assert copyright on VGA BIOS fonts because these are just bitmapped typefaces, not proper fonts. There is a world of difference between bitmapped fonts and hinted fonts like Type 1. Adobe has built an empire on this distinction. [*] This is to the best of my knowledge, which is a few years old, but which I regarded as being from a reputable source. Sorry, I don't have a cite. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux |Never attribute to malice that which can [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be adequately explained by stupidity. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgpvecAldILnr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Compuclick Ltda - Debian Vendor Page
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:30:12PM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > > > COMPUCLICK IS AUTHORIZED MANUFACTURER OF THE OFFICIAL CD OF DEBIAN AND BY > > > EACH CD THAT YOU BUY TO US YOU CONTRIBUTE TO AUTOMATICAMENTE A DOLAR TO > > > ALL PROJECTS DEBIAN/GNU BY INTERVAL OF FOUNDATION SPI What kind of crap is this? Who taught this person English? Binding legal terms should be written in clear, unambiguous, grammatic, and spell-checked language. * An indefinite article is required before "AUTHORIZED". To use the definite article would be false. * "BY EACH CD THAT YOU BUY TO US" is some of the worst preposition abuse I've ever seen. The phrase is nonsensical. * "YOU CONTRIBUTE TO" should not be followed by an adverb, if that's what that piece of subsequent garbage is. * "AUTOMATICAMENTE" isn't even a word. * "DOLAR" isn't a word, either. * "ALL PROJECTS DEBIAN/GNU" is not a grammatical construct. * There is no such thing as "DEBIAN/GNU". Debian is one entity, GNU is another; neither project exists in enough of a legal sense to be able to receive funding in the formal manner described. * "BY INTERVAL OF" is also not a grammatical construct. * "SPI" is not a foundation. * If one wants to donate money to Debian, one donates to Software in the Public Interest, Inc. If one wants to donate money to GNU, one donates to the Free Software Foundation. * There is no period at the end of this sentence, if it is reasonable to call this horrible piece of filth a sentence. I suggest "COMPUCLICK" confine themselves to conducting business only in languages with which they have some facility (if any exist). I don't think we would be deriving much of a revenue stream from them anyway, if their arithmetic skills are as poor as their linguistic ones. Permission is hereby granted to redistribute this mail, particularly if it makes its way back to the chowderheads who wrote that piece of excrement. -- G. Branden Robinson|You live and learn. Debian GNU/Linux |Or you don't live long. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgp2SPXhvYIuh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: review of jabberd2 packages
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:21:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > >GPLv2: > >* dpatch > >* debhelper > > Good to be cautious, but the purpose of these programs is to do things to > help create debian packages. As such, the resultant packages have no > dependence on these programs, to them, the packages are mere data. No > linking problem whatsoever. Yeah. Furthermore, these packages are authored by Debian developers, and if they're trying to assert copyright over packages produced with them we need to land on them with both feet. It's an internal matter to clear up. > >- libmysqlclient12 > > This one is a bit of a problem. As I understand it, the licencing was > changed to pure-GPL in version 12 of the library, but to get around all the > usual hoo-hah with linking exceptions, MySQL have been working on a blanket > linking exception for anything licenced under a "free" licence. There have > been a few goes around with that. > > Basically, you'll probably be OK (especially since MySQL have specifically > mentioned the OpenSSL linking exception in discussions), but you might want > to hunt up the various discussions here in the past for details. If every author who had to add an OpenSSL linking exception would mail the OpenSSL developers and ask them to relicense OpenSSL under, say, the 2- or 3-clause BSD license (which is very, very close to its current license -- minus the vituperation against the GNU GPL), much time and trouble might be saved in the future. It's possible that in the years since since some developer placed a rant against the GNU GPL in his license, he's realized that the GNU GPL doesn't actually have the power to change the copyright license on third-party works. -- G. Branden Robinson| That's the saving grace of humor: Debian GNU/Linux | if you fail, no one is laughing at [EMAIL PROTECTED] | you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- A. Whitney Brown signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Advice for middleman Debian package
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 03:00:06PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Cédric Delfosse wrote: > > Somebody pointed me that maybe I should remove all OpenSSL related > > code from the orig tarball. So, do you think this must be done ? > > I'm not sure if that's ever been done for other packages missing an > OpenSSL exception that we don't link with OpenSSL. > > If you've actually got the time and inclination, I would suggest > instead modifying the OpenSSL related part to work with gnutls > instead. [I've heard there are some wrappers which make this rather > easy, but I haven't done it myself.] Jeff Licquia (a Debian Developer) has had some experience with this. It might be worth asking his advice. -- G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and Debian GNU/Linux |improper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:03:57PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect > > to the most recent interpretations of the law. :-P The current > > interpretation of 17 USC Sect. 105 is that such works are > > copyright-controlled in countries which have copyright control over the > > works of their own governments. > > Also, public domain in the U.S. means that any U.S. citizen can assert > copyright over such works (or derivatives). > > So we can GPL such works, for all the difference that makes. Er, this only applies if you commingle the public domain work with an original contribution of your own, AIUI. If I can discern the public domain version of the work from your "copyrighted" version, then your version is not copyrighted at all. Things cannot leave the public domain except through an act of Congress. As Lawrence Lessig has pointed out, this has happened[1], but it's relatively rare, and typically reserved for major campaign contributors like large movie studios, record companies, and music publishers. [1] "Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), Pub. L. No. 103-465 (1994) (codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 104A, 109(a), goes a step further: it removes thousands of works from the public domain and retroactively grants them copyrights, thereby depriving the public of its ability – and right – to freely use materials that were, for many years, open to all. These laws have greatly harmed plaintiffs’ artistic endeavors, and their ability to perform, teach, and disseminate works to the public." -- http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/golanvashcroft/golan-reply.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:06:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > If I can discern the public domain version of the work from your > "copyrighted" version, then your version is not copyrighted at all. Gar. Nasty typo. s/can/cannot/ -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Fwd: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
e out whether this trademark license grant applies to you. [EXAMPLE -- NOT ACTUAL STATEMENT OF TRADEMARK HOLDER] My goals in the above restatement are several: 1) Eliminate "grant of license to specific party" problems which could run afoul of DFSG 8 or OSD 8. 2) Generalize the language so that it could be re-used for any other work the AbiSource community comes up with, not just AbiWord. 3) Do not attempt to prohibit anything not already prohibited by trademark law. This isn't merely the polite thing to do on the part of licensor; it leaves people in the position of having to consult with you and/or their lawyer(s) to figure out what they can get away with if they'd like to skirt your intentions. In most such cases the easiest and most affordable thing to do is just to rename the work and not use the trademarked names or images as representations of the work they're distributing. (As I understand it, they can still use the term "AbiWord" to make factual statements about the heredity of their forked work, which is probably good for the AbiSource community anyway. They merely cannot attempt to "pass off" their work as AbiWord without violating the Lanham Act[3].) I hope that the above accurately captures your desires, albeit in a broader context. Please let me know if I'm reasoning from any bad assuptions. Thanks for your work and understanding. If it matters, I've been a happy AbiWord user since version 0.9. :) [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines [2] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [3] http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/ -- G. Branden Robinson|Quantum materiae materietur marmota Debian GNU/Linux |monax si marmota monax materiam [EMAIL PROTECTED] |possit materiari? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
the meaning of 'the same terms" in DFSG 3, and why the QPL fails it (was: An old question of EGE's)
ect now as eager to fritter away our freedoms as he was. He'd feel much more at home. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines [2] http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl.html [3] I'd likely argue that such a clause is non-DFSG-free, though. Feel free to start a new thread if you'd like to hear why -- but until such a license really exists, I daresay the question is premature. [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00072.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:30:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I'll do this in the next day or so. It took me a week to get to this, but I've done it (message attached). I'll pass along whatever I learn. -- G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual activity ceases. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Anton Wilson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | --- Begin Message --- Mr. Markham, First of all, my apologies for sending this unsolicited mail. I'm a developer for the Debian Project[1], and in the course of a recent discussion, some of us became curious as to what the progress of the triple-licensing effort was. I did attempt to research the answer for myself. I checked the minutes of the weekly Mozilla staff meetings, and found that on 24 November 2003[2], it was believed that all necessary permissions had been obtained. Later, in January, I understand that you said in an email discussion that the relicensing was well underway, and that the only files you couldn't get permission to relicense were not important[3]. I've looked for more information, and I did check the Mozilla Relicensing FAQ[4], but it claims to have not been updated since 7 December, and I cannot determine the current status of the relicensing. I also checked the "copyright" file of Debian's mozilla-browser package, but it is either outdated, or perhaps that something has held up the relicensing effort: Some files in this source package are under the Netscape Public License Others, under the Mozilla Public license, and just to confuse you even· more, some are dual licensed MPL/GPL. Given the content of the Relicensing FAQ, I suspect this information is out of date, so I am CCing the Debian Mozilla package maintainers. If you could advise me where to look for the answers I seek, I sure would appreciate it. I'm sorry to take up your time with this. [1] http://www.debian.org/ [2] http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3FCB8B00.5070604%40mozilla.org [3] http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3FFC952B.2020302%40mozilla.org [4] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html -- G. Branden Robinson| The more you do, the more people Debian GNU/Linux | will dislike what you do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Gerfried Fuchs http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature --- End Message --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: question: Mozilla relicensing progress
The following message bounced back to me because Mr. Markham, or someone he trusts to deliver his mail, believes I am a spammer: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host smtp.osuosl.org[140.211.166.131] refused to talk to me: 550 Service unavailable; Client host [65.26.182.85] blocked using dynablock.njabl.org; Dynamic/Residential IP range listed by NJABL dynablock - http://njabl.org/dynablock.html Could someone who is not (as far as they know) in an anti-spam blacklist please forward this message to Mr. Markham for me? (Also, Mr. Markham's MTA waited 5 days to send me this bounce; I'm not sure why.) I am not now, nor have I ever been, a spammer. Nor has any machine I own or control been used as a platform for spamming with or without my knowledge or consent. I resent the implication that I have engaged in spam activities or permitted them to take place with the aid of my property. I do understand that most people don't care whom they tar with the accusation of "spammer" as long as they believe the level of spam they personally receive is lessened through the indiscriminate rejection of legitimate mail traffic. I may be beginning to understand -- just barely -- what it feels like to be pulled over by the police for having the wrong skin color. On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:56:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Mr. Markham, > > First of all, my apologies for sending this unsolicited mail. > > I'm a developer for the Debian Project[1], and in the course of a recent > discussion, some of us became curious as to what the progress of the > triple-licensing effort was. > > I did attempt to research the answer for myself. I checked the minutes of > the weekly Mozilla staff meetings, and found that on 24 November 2003[2], it > was believed that all necessary permissions had been obtained. > > Later, in January, I understand that you said in an email discussion that > the relicensing was well underway, and that the only files you couldn't get > permission to relicense were not important[3]. > > I've looked for more information, and I did check the Mozilla Relicensing > FAQ[4], but it claims to have not been updated since 7 December, and I > cannot determine the current status of the relicensing. I also checked the > "copyright" file of Debian's mozilla-browser package, but it is either > outdated, or perhaps that something has held up the relicensing effort: > > Some files in this source package are under the Netscape Public License > Others, under the Mozilla Public license, and just to confuse you even· > more, some are dual licensed MPL/GPL. > > Given the content of the Relicensing FAQ, I suspect this information is out > of date, so I am CCing the Debian Mozilla package maintainers. > > If you could advise me where to look for the answers I seek, I sure would > appreciate it. I'm sorry to take up your time with this. > > [1] http://www.debian.org/ > [2] http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3FCB8B00.5070604%40mozilla.org > [3] > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3FFC952B.2020302%40mozilla.org > [4] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html > > -- > G. Branden Robinson| The more you do, the more people > Debian GNU/Linux | will dislike what you do. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Gerfried Fuchs > http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: the meaning of 'the same terms" in DFSG 3, and why the QPL fails it (was: An old question of EGE's)
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:41:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
> >specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
> >
> > The license must allow modifications and derived works.
> >
> >=2E..hmm?
>
> It did in the first draft. The language that ended up appearing in the
> final form only turns up after Bruce went off to discuss things with ESR
> (there was some sort of ncurses licensing fun going on at the time -
> ncurses didn't allow distribution of modified works. The phrasing of
> what was at that point DFSG 1 but ended up being split into several
> different clauses was apparantly designed to make sure that ESR was
> happy).
>
> There's no discussion of /why/ there was the change of language - it's
> not clear that it was supposed to make any substantive change to the
> meaning. I think we'd have to ask Bruce to have any real idea.
Okay. Given the above, is your belief that the words added to DFSG 3 ("and
must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
the original software.") don't actually mean anything?
I would concede that I have a weaker case if they are just meaningless
noise words.
Are they?
--
G. Branden Robinson|Nixon was so crooked that he needed
Debian GNU/Linux |servants to help him screw his
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |pants on every morning.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Hunter S. Thompson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: the meaning of 'the same terms" in DFSG 3, and why the QPL fails it (was: An old question of EGE's)
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
> > specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
> >
> > The license must allow modifications and derived works.
> >
> > ...hmm?
>
> Perhaps DFSG 3 is looking at it from the point of view of the receiver
> of the modified work rather than the modifer: A creates a QPL work, B
> modifies it and gives the modified version to C. Then C gets the
> modified work under the same licence as the original work was
> distributed. However, if you really want to know how DFSG 3 was
> intended then you must talk to the people who wrote it.
To be honest, I'm less interested in that than in what it is we think it
means today.
I believe we need to permit our interpretations of the DFSG to evolve over
time (because the world of licensing evolves as well), but if we evolve so
much that an entire requirement ("and must allow them to be distributed
under the same terms as the license of the original software.") is
interpreted to be meaningless, we'd better be prepared to defend that
position.
I do not think the first inclination of a newcomer to the DFSG is to regard
those words as being wholly ineffectual.
If they are, we should amend the DFSG to remove them.
Alternatively, if they do mean something, we need to figure out what they
mean. What *does* it mean to be "distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software"?
--
G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the
Debian GNU/Linux |best of all possible worlds.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists fear that this really is
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the best of all possible worlds.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:44:32AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the > RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG. Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G" in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines". As the DFSG FAQ[1] puts it: 9. Q: How can I tell if a license is a free software license, by Debian's standards? A: The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to articulate our criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means that if you think you've found a "loophole" in the DFSG then you don't quite understand how this works. The DFSG is a potentially imperfect attempt to express what "freeness" in software means to Debian. It is not something whose letter we argue about. It is not a law. Rather, it is a set of guidelines. > We might be willing to engage in a conversation about changing the RPSL, > but not in an environment where it is clearly subject to the whims of > whoever happens to be discussing the issues on the list. This is a straw-man argument. It is also inflammatory and insulting to the subscribers of the debian-legal mailing list, some of whom have been participating in license discussions and negotiations for years to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved. Is this the sort of example you really want to set for Debian's future communications with Real Networks? > I would love to work with the Debian project on making sure RPSL is > Debian-free. However, it makes it really difficult to engage the > RealNetworks Legal department when there's a lot of discussion about > personal tastes, but no mapping back to DFSG clauses. That just makes > everyone here believe that there will be an endless stream of > manufactured excuses as to why future versions of the RPSL will also not > be considered Debian-free. It sounds to me like you're constructing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why do you suppose that the Debian community is predisposed to reject the RPSL? What do you know that we don't? Is the RPSL *designed* to undermine user's freedoms, yet sneak into Debian main because it passes the DFSG via some sort of simplistic checklist analysis? If not, what have you to fear? As a licensor I think you have some important questions to ask yourself; you need not share the answers with the Debian Project, but doing so may help us to understand your position, and if your desires are compatible with the aims of free software, why they are. * What do you want to allow? * What do you want to prohibit? * Upon which laws do you ground each of your prohibitions (copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, etc.)? * Why are existing licenses insufficient? + Does the MIT/X11 license[2] permit things you want to prohibit? + Does the GNU GPL[3] prohibit things you want to allow? * Is it important that works under your license be shipped as part of Debian's OS? * If a work under your license is accepted as Free by the Debian Project, but something causes it not to be shipped in the Debian OS[4], would you regard that as a failure? [1] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html [2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php [3] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [4] Reasons for this include but are not limited to: A) no one is available to maintain the package B) the package is of insufficient quality to be included; e.g. violates Debian Policy (for instance, ships executables in /usr/share/man) C) the package is too buggy to be included; e.g., has a horrendous bug such as the package preinst script running "rm -rf /" D) the package is accused of infringing a third party's patent, and we know of a litigitous patent holder who claims to own the patents and sends nastygrams ordering people to desist and/or pay royalties E) the software's functionity is outlawed by some jurisdiction that is important to the Debian Project, such as the United States or European Union; F) the software itself is enjoined from distribution in some jurisdiction important to the Debian Project, such as the states in the U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit Lest one accuse me of producing makeweight arguments, none of the above are hypothetical reasons for a package's exclusion from Debian OS release (or from distribution by Debian altogether). Apart from my specific examples of a policy violation and horrendous bug, all have been seen in practice. -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [htdig-dev] Licensing issues...
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:16:36PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: [on the 4-clause BSD license's compelled-advertising clause being GPL-incompatible] > As a point of note, RMS has said that this interpretation is considered to > be a bug in the GPL, and that the FSF has no current intention of pursuing > violations of this, because it wasn't intended (they still, of course, > recommend going to a 3 or even 2 clause variant of the license). > > I believe I still have the email somewhere in my archives if necessary, but > to date it hasn't been terribly relevant. That's useful to know, but not dispositive for Debian's purposes. That the FSF regards this as a violation they can overlook doesn't mean other people using the GNU GPL won't, and there are many. (Harald Welte of the netfilter Project is just one example of recent prominence.) The DFSG-freeness of a particular license as interpreted by a particular licensor on a particular work is almost always the most important evaluation that Debian has to make. For further reading: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17409 http://lwn.net/Articles/95006/ -- G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [htdig-dev] Licensing issues...
[self-reply] On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:59:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > That the FSF regards this as a violation they can overlook doesn't mean > other people using the GNU GPL won't, and there are many. Er... s/won't/will/ Hopefully my meaning was clear from context. -- G. Branden Robinson| Life is what happens to you while Debian GNU/Linux | you're busy making other plans. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- John Lennon http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus > (and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake > happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again. On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:15:26PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > The summary I linked to was about reworked X-Oz license, which is > clearly GPL-incompatible and probably non-free. However, clause 4 > criticized in the summary is identical to a clause in the license that > started this thread, and all the other X licenses, and very similar to > the 3-clause BSD license. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the main reason I objected to the compelled-advertising clause in the X-Oz license was that we could not determine what it *meant* according to the licensor. We asked them, and in response, their representative promised replies and failed to deliver, and indulged in digressions on Heideggerian existentialism. (I trust people curious to confirm the above statements can review the list archives for themselves.) I don't see why you consider this determination to be an "egregious mistake". I don't know what business we have declaring licenses whose terms we don't understand as DFSG-free. -- G. Branden Robinson| The Rehnquist Court has never Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal statute it [EMAIL PROTECTED] | did not like. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Dean signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:20:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free. ...because we don't undestand what X-Oz means when they say it. > > Since clause 4 is identical to what's contained in the X11 license, it > > makes it difficult to take the summary terribly seriously. > > Oh, wow. > > Shame on you, Branden, for placing Debian's X packaging scripts under a > non-free license! Or have you recanted from your position in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00162.html? Is this sort of remark intended to be productive, or are you just venting your spleen because you don't appear to have actually comprehended the message you cite? -- G. Branden Robinson|Those who fail to remember the laws Debian GNU/Linux |of science are condemned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |rediscover some of the worst ones. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Harold Gordon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:37:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > /* > > * Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes. > > * Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies. > > * All rights reserved. > > * > > * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > > * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the > > "Software"), > > * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation > > * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, > > * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the > > * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > > (I recall hearing something like this from Branden on IRC, but anyway) > > Doesn't explicitly grant permission to distribute modified software, so it > fails to comply with DFSG #3. I don't recall saying anything like this on IRC. IMO, the traditional MIT/X11 license[1] is DFSG-free. It is, however, worth noting that many subtle variations of the MIT/X11 license exist. That the traditional MIT/X11 license is (by general consensus, I daresay) DFSG-free, that any license derived from it is also DFSG-free. The DFSG-freeness determinations we make depend on: 1) the license terms used on a particular work; 2) the nature and content of that work; 3) the interpretation of the license's terms by the copyright holders in the work so licensed In my opinion, the unnamed license which I called the "X-Oz license" (for want of a better term), and which is not the same as the MIT/X11 license which Daniel Stone quoted, failed the DFSG primarly due to problems in 3), not 1). That reasonable people can interpret the license in a DFSG-free way does not mean the licensor or copyright holder does so, and in fact we were unable to determine what the licensor/copyright holder's interpretation was. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php -- G. Branden Robinson| It just seems to me that you are Debian GNU/Linux | willfully entering an arse-kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | contest with a monstrous entity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:09:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under > >the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the > >same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form > >the core of Nathaniel's concerns. > > That's Nathan*a*el. :-) > > Looks good. I was, like Branden, confused by the silent relicensing by > David Dawes in the XFree86 repo in September 2003. :-( Yup. > The *other* thing I was concerned about are the code by David Dawes & > friends which he committed in the period when he claims that new code > was licensed under the 1.1 license despite not changing the license > notice in the specific files. That stuff is nearly all trivial, > however. I made a list of some sort of some of that at some point, I > seem to remember. Do you think you could update that list in light of what we know now about the original licensing of the X autoconfig code? -- G. Branden Robinson|If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux |thinking, they'll love you; but if [EMAIL PROTECTED] |you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hate you.-- Don Marquis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: acceptable copyright?
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:00:10PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Looks fine to me. On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:49:49PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Looks OK On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 09:34:10PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > It looks like a 2-clause BSD license. > It's perfectly fine and suitable for main. This is completely unacceptable. How is debian-legal to maintain the credibility of baseless and irrational assertions about how we constantly reject even obviously DFSG-free licenses if we, in fact, don't? You guys should have more sympathy for hysterical doomsayers with poor reading comprehension skills. They need to feel important, too. :-P -- G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: W3 software license
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:57:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Evan Prodromou wrote: > > The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says > > "obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the > > license. > > That isn't a problem in and of itself; it often indicates the presence > of non-free usage restriction terms, but no such terms appear to be > present in this license. I disagree. I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a list of licenses we accept as DFSG-free without at least asking the upstream authors to remove this wording. The exclusive rights granted to authors and their transferees under copyright law attach regardless of the "acceptance" of those terms by third parties. Witness the fact that one can be sued for copyright infringement even if one has never dealt with, or even heard of, the person or corporation who holds a given copyright. A license is a license, not a contract. IMO it would be best to at least contact the upstream authors and make this request. -- G. Branden Robinson| Our ignorance is God; what we Debian GNU/Linux | know is science. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Green Ingersoll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Quick(?) Questions on Choice of Law & Venue
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 09:57:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > US law does not require choice of law clauses, so long as the > prosecuting party can in some sense claim to be in the US. Even if > they're a foreign multinational who just has an office there. They can > blithely apply their laws to everybody. Yes, this is idiotic. The > state of California takes it to extremes - they apply their own > *state* law to everybody. That's not (quite) true, according to the California Supreme Court. See: http://www.virtualrecordings.com/pavrelease.htm While not ideal, the situation is not *quite* as dire as you paint. > Sickeningly there's plenty of precedent for this second scenario. Stay > away from the US; they have delusions of imperialism. s/delusions/ambitions/ See: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html -- G. Branden Robinson|Half of being smart is knowing what Debian GNU/Linux |you're dumb at. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- David Gerrold http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote: > > > "Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License" > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html > > > > Clause 4 of the license posted at the start of this thread is, with the > > execption of whos names it protects, word-for-word identical. > > > > Am I missing something? > > Yes. Clause 3 is the GPL-incompatible non-free one. Clause 4 is standard > boilerplate, found in many licenses (it's also superfluous, being > written into copyright by default in US law). Can you please cite what part of US copyright law does that? To my knowledge, what you're referring to is actually part of the common-law doctrine of "right of publicity"[1], which I've mentioned on this list before[2]. In short, you doesn't have to become a copyright holder in the U.S. to enjoy legal protections against people using your name or likeness in their advertising without your consent. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html [2] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00540.html -- G. Branden Robinson| The more ridiculous a belief Debian GNU/Linux | system, the higher the probability [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of its success. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Wayne R. Bartz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.] On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting > applicants to the joys of rigorous licence analysis. We have d-legal for > this purpose just so maintainers don't have to be licence experts. The > question about Pine licencing is a pretty good test of basic DFSG analytical > ability. The trouble is, some of the same people who are excused from doing rigorous license analysis during P&P proceed to style themselves as licensing experts and spitefully ridicule the people who *do* do the hard work on debian-legal. We've seen great many examples of this over the past few months. Count me in favor of increasing the amount of licensing-oriented material in P&P. In my opinion, we want new developers to more easily grasp the facts that: 1) sometimes subtle issues are involved when trying to understand a license; 2) even licenses like the BSD and GPL represent compromises with "pure freedom" 3) phenomena like "moral rights" (droit d'auteur), software patents, and regulations on cryptography can cause a given work under a given license to be de facto licensed differently in different jurisdictions that Debian cares about We can't teach people to be respectful of the careful thought and analysis that (often) goes on in -legal, but we might be able to throw enough information at them that they are discouraged from just blindly assuming that all problems are trivially easy, and that they enjoy a perfect understanding of everything that all right-thinking people share. For some reason, some folks assert apodictic certainty about legal issues with a fervor they wouldn't dare attempt with respect to technical software issues for fear of being ridiculed and thought of as immature brats by their peers. -- G. Branden Robinson|It's extremely difficult to govern Debian GNU/Linux |when you control all three branches [EMAIL PROTECTED] |of government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- John Feehery signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:05:56AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote: > > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified. > > > > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the > > interpretation of the FSF, we've done so with very careful > > justification of the reasoning behind our difference in opinion, and > > how that springs from the DFSG. > > > > The few thousand messages on the GFDL are a reasonable example of the > > process of justification that we have gone through. > > If there's one thing I would never accuse the participants of this list of, > it's lack of care and thoroughness. My real concern is simply to allow these > carefully formed conclusions to reflect the will of the project as a whole. Apart from Raul Miller's[1], I have yet to read a rebutal to Manoj's draft position statement on the GNU FDL[2]. If you would direct me to one which represents "the will of the project as a whole", I'd appreciate it. Given that Raul himself, after a thread that went several directions, said "I'm not trying to convince people that the GFDL as it currently stands should be considered DFSG free. I'm ambivalent about that."[3], we seem to be rather short on comprehensive and well-reasoned defenses of the DFSG-freeness of the GNU FDL. Maybe you can help. [1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00030.html [2] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml [3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00235.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
[self-followup] On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:09:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > It is, however, worth noting that many subtle variations of the MIT/X11 > license exist. That the traditional MIT/X11 license is (by > general consensus, I daresay) DFSG-free, that any license derived from it > is also DFSG-free. There are some missing words in the above. Here's what I meant to say: That the traditional MIT/X11 license is (by general consensus, I daresay) DFSG-free, does not mean that any license derived from it is also DFSG-free. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's something wrong if you're Debian GNU/Linux | always right. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Glasow's Law http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:26:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:35:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Well, did you heard the case where, i think it was california, decided that > > it > > could sue people all over the world ? > > You seem to get a different version of the news than I do; the case I've > heard of involved a Debian developer successfully appealing to the > California Supreme Court, and overturning this jurisdictional claim. If you'll check the -private archives from a few years ago, you'll find that many Debian developers confidently predicted that Mr. Pavlovich would lose. Some people don't like to let facts get in the way of their opinions. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| One doesn't have a sense of humor. Debian GNU/Linux | It has you. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Larry Gelbart http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: the meaning of 'the same terms" in DFSG 3, and why the QPL fails it (was: An old question of EGE's)
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:08:39 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > > > However, if you really want to know how DFSG 3 was intended then you > > > must talk to the people who wrote it. > > > > To be honest, I'm less interested in that than in what it is we think it > > means today. > > You don't seem to be very consistent on this point. > > You yourself used Bruce's clarification that he intended the DFSG to > be applied to everything on the Debian CDs to back up your own > interpretation[1] and suggested seeking his counsel regarding the > meaning of the (now defunct) "We won't object to commercial software > that is intended to run on Debian systems" clause[2]. > > What brought about this change of heart? You're positing a false dilemma, similar to the one conservative "strict constructionists" in the U.S. have been using against the Earl Warren court for a generation or two. The intentions and reasoning that went into the deliberations that forged the original DFSG and Social Contract provide extremely important context for understanding the motivations of those documents, as well as the nature of the problems and threats to freedom that were -- and were not -- anticipated by the Debian Project at the time. That is very valuable information to have, which is why I continue to be disappointed that we haven't collectively thrown open this aspect of our history to the wider community (it's all archived in debian-private). However, providing context is not the same thing as mandating a certain conclusion. It is *our* responsibility, not our ancestors', to uphold the rights of users and developers. History should provide context for our decisions, but *we* must make the relevant judgements in the present. Historical context can be persuasive, but it is not dispositive. > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/08/msg00017.html > [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/06/msg00299.html -- G. Branden Robinson|Half of being smart is knowing what Debian GNU/Linux |you're dumb at. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- David Gerrold http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.] On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > Hello Brian, > > * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]: > > It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers > > about licensing issues. Legal text is very different from colloquial > > English, and non-native speakers are often completely overwhelmed. > > Hell, even native speakers have difficulty understanding licenses like > > the graphviz license. > > oh thats what i like to say too. read my emails :) I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in one's peers who do. I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the debian-legal list collectively, particularly when it comes from people who don't participate in its discussions. Maybe there is some sort of "Real Hackers Don't Need Debian-Legal" elitism going on; maybe it's just good old-fashioned fear of what one doesn't understand. At any rate, I'm not saying we need to make the P&P process turn our NMs into legal experts. I *am* saying we need to educate them that legal issues, even in Free Software, are sufficiently complex that expertise is actually required. Armchair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance is antisocial and corrosive to our organization. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to human stupidity Debian GNU/Linux | that which can be adequately [EMAIL PROTECTED] | explained by GNU Libtool. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Scott James Remnant signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: W3 software license
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:33:26AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> Branden Robinson: > >>> Josh Triplett: > >>>The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says > >>>"obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the > >>>license. [...] > >>I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a > >>list of licenses we accept as DFSG-free without at least asking the > >>upstream authors to remove this wording. > > > > Why don't we do this: I'll write up a summary of the license, and note that > > we > > think that works released under the license would, barring complications, be > > free. > > > > I'll also add a suggestion to drop the use language. > > > > How does that sound? > > Sounds great. Any progress on this? -- G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often Debian GNU/Linux | pretenders. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Plato http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: the meaning of 'the same terms" in DFSG 3, and why the QPL fails it (was: An old question of EGE's)
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:59:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote: > > What brought about this change of heart? [...] > Historical context can be persuasive, but it is not dispositive. Oh yeah, and lest you think you've "caught me out in a contradiction", and recasting my position retrospectively to avoid embarrassment, let me assure you that you haven't. :) Permit me to quote myself on -private, from a few months ago, well before your clever discovery of my "change of heart": From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GNU Free Documentation License revisited Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 02:13:15 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] I cite Bruce because, based upon my review of the archives of debian-private, his interpretation of the SC exemplifies that of the Debian developers who approved the document. As the primary author of the document, his perspective doesn't have to be dispositive to be useful. Please note the final sentence. I'm afraid can't find you in the current Debian Developers' keyring provided in the debian-keyring package, so perhaps you are not one. Hopefully you can find one to independently verify the accuracy of my assertion, as -private is not publicly archived. In the future, you might want to make fewer presumptions. -- G. Branden Robinson| It's not a matter of alienating Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | license their software however we http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:35:10PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > Now, I can infer one of three things: > > 1. You had off-list contact with the X-Oz people before the license was > analyzed here on -legal, and did not communicate their non-standard > interpretation of that clause back to us for the summary. > > 2. You can travel through time, and went back to prepare the summary > with the knowledge that X-Oz had weird license interpretations. > > 3. You are confusing the order in which events happened (I suppose this > is not really in conflict with the above). > > I suppose 1) is possible, but I find 3) most likely. David Dawes, who is the founder of X-Oz Technologies, was asked many questions about the meaning of the XFree86 1.1 license (which appears to be semantically identical to the X-Oz License) on the XFree86 Forum list[1] and other lists in January and February. I'm not subscribed to -forum, but I read a lot of its traffic back then because, as a member of the X Strike Force package maintenance team for Debian, I needed to know what the heck was going on with the upstream licensing of XFree86. > > I don't see why you consider this determination to be an "egregious > > mistake". I don't know what business we have declaring licenses whose > > terms we don't understand as DFSG-free. > > Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public > conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start of > this thread -- is identical to that used in the existing X license. There is a world beyond Debian, you know. :) > I agree that non-standard interpretations of common clauses can result in > a license being non-free (c.f. pine), but I don't find any evidence that > that was the case when the X-Oz license summary was published. Well, the problem was more a refusal on the part of the license author to *state* an interpretation, rather than adopt a non-standard one. > I suspect that summary is where Brian drew his conclusion that the > license that started this thread was non-free. > > I stand by my statement that the X-Oz license summary as currently > published is an "egregious mistake". The XFree86 Forum list archives stand available to anyone who cares to slog through the gigantic threads the announced the license change generated. In my view, there are many more questions than answers to be found on that list -- particularly when it comes to on-topic threads, sadly. [1] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/ -- G. Branden Robinson|Beware of and eschew pompous Debian GNU/Linux |prolixity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Charles A. Beardsley http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved
clone 248853 -1 retitle -1 ftp.debian.org: please remove un-redistributable 3270 package from the archive reassign -1 ftp.debian.org thanks Given that the package maintainer has taken no visible action on this in over 4 months, I recommend removing this package from Debian's FTP archives so as to reduce our potential liability for copyright infringements. Archive admins: in a nutshell, there is code copyrighted by the Minolta corporation in the 3270 package for which there is no statement of license. For reference, the affected code appears to be: [apt-get source package, cd into its directory, and run "./debian/rules unpack".] c3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1] c3270-3.3/X3270.xad: apparently lines 733 to 763, inclusive [2] s3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1] tcl3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1] x3270-3.3/kybd.c:FieldExit_action() [1] All in all, it's a pretty small amount of material that falls under this problematic copyright, but if the package maintainer doesn't feel it's important to rectify the issue -- for instance, by asking for assistance in clean-room reimplementing the affected portion -- then that's his prerogative, and the package should be removed. Thanks for your time. On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-( [...] > Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to > use his code under "any license" as long as his name is preserved > (earlier in the bug trail) -- so for anything copyrighted by him, we're OK. > > *UN*fortunately he apparently isn't the sole copyright holder of the > 5250 code. Permission would be needed from Minolta, and I seriously > doubt he has the right to speak for them, even though he's an employee. > I doubt he wants to go to the trouble of clearing this with Minolta's > legal department. :-( [1] A C function of 39 lines. [2] This is simply an Xt event translation table. It contains basic mappings from Xt event names to Xt actions, some of which appear to be stock and some of which are registered by the code. I'm not sure this is copyrightable. -- G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]: > > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been > > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen. > > It's interesting that you say that, Mr Robinson. Last time I > suggested that -legal should engage in more active arbitration with > upstream (for which I'd happily have a delegate) you told me that this > is not the task of -legal. Also, I encouraged summarizing and > documenting the findings of -legal about licenses and agreed that we > can appoint a delegate if that's useful and once it's clear who would > be a good candidate for that. Would you kindly let me know whether you intend to retract the above snarky personal attack, issued in your formal capacity as Debian Project Leader and grounded upon a questionable recollection of the facts, given that even after nearly 6 months you have not bothered to reply to either of my follow-ups (quoted below)? I could assume that your answer is "no", but that would be ungenerous. On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:10:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project > Leader wrote: > > * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]: > > > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been > > > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen. > > > It's interesting that you say that, Mr Robinson. Last time I > > suggested that -legal should engage in more active arbitration with > > upstream (for which I'd happily have a delegate) > > Where precisely did you make this suggestion? Here's what I can find: > > On 24 January, Daniel Quinlan proposed to -legal a protocol for a formal > license review process, of which the salient points were 1) a submission > queue [not debian-legal itself] for all license review requests; 2) > forwarding of requests to -legal for discussion; 3) an official entity > [delegate(s)?] which drafts a response reflecting the consensus of the > list; 4) final response to be sent with in 30 days of submission to the > queue.[1] > > You replied a couple of weeks later[2], asserting that his suggestion "[had] > merit", but "[had] to be done in a way which is compatible with how -legal > works." You exhorted debian-legal to prepare summaries (which we have), and > "explicitly talk to people creating licenses to make sure they get it right", > we which we either haven't had a chance to do[3], or have already done[4]. > > You did not use the words "delegate" or "official", nor anything synonymous > as far as I can tell, in your reply to Mr. Quinlan. Instead, at the end of > the message, you emphasized that you would not be taking immediate action: > > I'd like to hear what other people from -legal think. I'm certainly > not going to appoint anyone without the consent of -legal since this > is just not the way it can work. But perhaps we can find a solution > together. > > > you told me that this is not the task of -legal. > > I did? Where did I do that? Not only did I not reply to your messages to > debian-legal in that thread[5], I didn't post to the thread at all. (It > seemed to be doing just fine without me.) In fact, as far as I can > determine, if you and I have communicated on this subject, we haven't done > it on the debian-legal mailing list[6]. Of the nine messages you've sent > me privately this year, none of have been on this subject. > > So that you'll surmise less and understand more about what I think, here's > my opinion: debian-legal is a discussion list, and that's what it does > best. It discusses. I think that, as DPL, you'd be best advised to draw > any delegates on licensing issues from the pool of respected participants > on the debian-legal list; they are more likely to be informed, be > interested, and have the respect of their peers. > > Furthermore, back in 2001, I called for such a body in my platform for > Debian Project Leader[7]. I said: > > Just as Debian has a Technical Committee, I'd like to see a body of > legally-minded people formed who are prepared to give this[sic] issues > the kind of scrutiny they deserve. As with the Technical Committee, of > course, their decisions could be overridden by a General Resolution of > the developers. The point is to get a formal structure in place for > handing issues like this that don't require Gene
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:19:30PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 > licenses. [...] On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:17:12PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: [...] > The summary is also available here: > > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html I have seen no indication that this summary has become final, despite the fact that it only prompted one objection (from Sean Kellogg[1], a virtual paroxysm of dismay in which he apparently didn't even read the entire of text of the summary). What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on this? [1] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- G. Branden Robinson| I'm a firm believer in not drawing Debian GNU/Linux | trend lines before you have data [EMAIL PROTECTED] | points. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Tim Ottinger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#287089: shermans-aquarium: contains non-free or undistributable images
Package: shermans-aquarium Version: 2.2.0-1 Severity: serious Justification: violates section 2.2.1 of Debian Policy As noted on debian-legal on 20 August by Nathanael Nerode, shermans-aquarium appears to contain non-DFSG-free images files. It is unclear to me whether these files are even distributable by Debian at all; that they come free-of-charge with a gratis screen saver for Windows operating systems implies no grant of permission to the Debian Project whatsoever. I have attached the debian/copyright file and upstream README. The copyright holder in the images, Jim Toomey, should be contacted as soon as possible for license negotiations. If those are unsuccessful and distributable replacement images are not used, this package should be withdrawn from the Debian archives. (Without a grant of license under copyright law, we cannot distribute these images even in non-free). -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.4.25-powerpc-smp Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages shermans-aquarium depends on: ii libart-2.0-22.3.16-6 Library of functions for 2D graphi ii libatk1.0-0 1.8.0-4 The ATK accessibility toolkit ii libbonobo2-02.8.0-4 Bonobo CORBA interfaces library ii libbonoboui2-0 2.8.0-2 The Bonobo UI library ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-19 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libgconf2-4 2.8.1-4 GNOME configuration database syste ii libglib2.0-02.4.8-1 The GLib library of C routines ii libgnome2-0 2.8.0-6 The GNOME 2 library - runtime file ii libgnomecanvas2 2.8.0-1 A powerful object-oriented display ii libgnomeui-02.8.0-3 The GNOME 2 libraries (User Interf ii libgnomevfs2-0 2.8.3-6 The GNOME virtual file-system libr ii libgtk2.0-0 2.4.14-2 The GTK+ graphical user interface ii libice6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 Inter-Client Exchange library ii liborbit2 1:2.10.2-1.1 libraries for ORBit2 - a CORBA ORB ii libpanel-applet 2.8.2-1 Library for GNOME 2 Panel applets ii libpango1.0-0 1.6.0-3 Layout and rendering of internatio ii libpopt01.7-5lib for parsing cmdline parameters ii libsdl1.2debian 1.2.7+1.2.8cvs20041007-3 Simple DirectMedia Layer ii libsm6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Window System Session Management ii libx11-64.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Window System protocol client li ii libxml2 2.6.11-5 GNOME XML library ii xlibs 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Keyboard Extension (XKB) configu ii zlib1g 1:1.2.2-4compression library - runtime This package was debianized by Jose M. Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:51:52 +0200. It was downloaded from http://aquariumapplet.sourceforge.net/ Upstream Author: Jonas Aaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copyright: Sherman's aquarium is available under GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2. NOTICE: The fish images are copyrighted by Jim Toomey! They are extracted from a Windows screensaver that is released as freeware. The fish images are NOT GNU GPL! (see README file for more information) On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. Sherman's aquarium v2.2.0 === (Formly known as Aquarium applet) This is a wm(Window maker) applet, Gnome applet(both verison 1 and 2) and a XscreenSaver "hack" that gives you an aquarium with some randomly selected fishes that lives there. Well, to tell you the truth, you can get some other strange sea animails in your aquarium too. Some other features this program gives you, except for the part that it gives you an aquarium with fishes that takes care of itself, no feed, no cleaning and so on, is that the temperature scale on the right side shows the CPU load. It can also be configurated to display the time and show the status of numlock, capslock and scrollock. The fishes are done by Jim Toomey, the author of the "Sherman's Lagoon" comics. Fish Images: The fish images are taken from a freeware windows screen saver by Jim Toomey.(www.slagoon.com) He draws a really great cartoon strip named "Sherman's lagoon". (You can ready a daily strip at his site, and in many news papers.) I have to point out that NO reverse engineering nor disassembling was made in order to extract the fish images. I did just look at the hex code and wrote a program that read the interesting parts, and converted them to readable images. So the fish images are copyrighted by Jim Toomey, and released in his screens
Bug#287090: kaquarium: copyright file does not mention apparently unlicensed image files
Package: kaquarium
Version: 1.0-beta-3
Severity: serious
Justification: violation of Debian Policy 2.2.1
As noted on debian-legal on 20 August by Nathanael Nerode, kaquarium
appears to contain non-DFSG-free images files (some of the same ones as
shermans-aquarium).
It is unclear to me whether these files are even distributable by Debian
at all; that they come free-of-charge with a gratis screen saver for
Windows operating systems implies no grant of permission to the Debian
Project whatsoever.
Moreover, no indication is given in the debian/copyright file that the work
of anyone other than Ramiro Tasquer was involved in the upstream package.
I have attached the debian/copyright file and the only file that credits
Jim Toomey with the images, src/main.cpp.
The copyright holder in the images, Jim Toomey, should be contacted as soon
as possible for license negotiations. If those are unsuccessful and
distributable replacement images are not used, this package should be
withdrawn from the Debian archives. (Without a grant of license under
copyright law, we cannot distribute these images even in non-free).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.25-powerpc-smp
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages kaquarium depends on:
ii kdelibs4 4:3.3.1-4 KDE core libraries
ii libart-2.0-2 2.3.16-6Library of functions for 2D graphi
ii libc62.3.2.ds1-19GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.4.3-6 GCC support library
ii libice6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 Inter-Client Exchange library
ii libidn11 0.5.2-3 GNU libidn library, implementation
ii libpng12-0 1.2.8rel-1 PNG library - runtime
ii libqt3c102-mt3:3.3.3-7 Qt GUI Library (Threaded runtime v
ii libsm6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Window System Session Management
ii libstdc++5 1:3.3.5-5 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii libx11-6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Window System protocol client li
ii libxext6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Window System miscellaneous exte
ii libxrender1 0.8.3-7 X Rendering Extension client libra
ii xlibs4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Keyboard Extension (XKB) configu
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.2-4 compression library - runtime
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include "misc.h"
#include "fishes.h"
#include "canvasview.h"
#include "bubbles.h"
#include "pref.h"
#include "configdlg.h"
#include "main.h"
extern "C"
{
KPanelApplet* init( QWidget *parent, const QString& configFile )
{
KGlobal::locale()->insertCatalogue( "kaquarium" );
returnnew kfish( configFile, KPanelApplet::Normal,
KPanelApplet::About | KPanelApplet::Preferences,
parent, "kaquarium" );
}
}
kfish *kfishApp = 0L;
kfish::kfish( const QString& configFile, Type type, int actions,
QWidget *parent, const char *name )
: KPanelApplet(configFile, type, actions, parent, name)
, confDlg( 0 )
{
kfishApp = this;
// random
srand( time(NULL) );
// Add layout
QVBoxLayout *vbox;
vbox = new QVBoxLayout(this);
resize(200,200);
connect( kfishPref::prefs() , SIGNAL( changePref() ), this, SIGNAL( signalSettingsChanged() ) );
connect( this, SIGNAL( signalSettingsChanged() ), this, SLOT( slotSettingsChanged() ));
// start canvas, where i'll show the fish
m_canvas = new QCanvas( 0, "Canvas" );
m_canvasview = new kfishCanvasView( m_canvas, this, "CanvasView" );
vbox->add(m_canvasview);
m_canvasview -> setCanvas( m_canvas );
// set some canvas options
m_canvas->setBackgroundColor( QColor(0,0,100) );
m_canvas->setAdvancePeriod( 30 );
m_canvas->resize( 1 ,1 );
m_canvas->setDoubleBuffering(true);
// set the background
setWall( locate("data", "kaquarium/pics/water.png"), m_canvas );
// start bubbles
m_bubble = new kfishBubbleManager( m_canvas, this );
// put CanvasView inside the layout
m_fish = new kfishManager( this );
// Mouse tracking, so i know if the mouse is over the widget (fishCanvasView)
setMouseTracking ( true );
// set the default width space for future usage
m_oldwidth = kfishPref::prefs() -> getWidth();
// set the orientation
kfishPref::prefs() -> setOrientation( orientation() );
}
kfish::~kfish(void)
{
delete m_canvasview;
delete m_fish;
delete m_bubble;
delete m_canvas;
}
int kfish::widthForHeight( int h ) const
{
kfishPref::p
Re: License for VCP
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 01:37:37AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > Any work released under such a license can go in main, provided that > > * there is no indication that the copyright holder interprets the > license in some unusual (and non-free) ways > > * the work is unencumbered by actively enforced software patents We don't generally seek affirmative evidence that these are the case before accepting something into main. We simply may decide to remove a package from main if either of them prove to be false. -- G. Branden Robinson|Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux |he is half an animal is only half a [EMAIL PROTECTED] |man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Thornton Wilder signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request for IPR review
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of > the new OASIS[1] IPR draft. I tried to review it myself, but the legalese > is a bit on the opaque side for me. [...] > Can anyone who is interested in reviewing the document please contact me? > I'll send you the document for a quick review. Did anyone get in touch with you about this? -- G. Branden Robinson|It may be difficult to to determine Debian GNU/Linux |where religious beliefs end and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |mental illness begins. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Elaine Cassel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request for IPR review
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > > > I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of > > > > > the new OASIS[1] IPR draft. I tried to review it myself, but the legalese > > > is a bit on the opaque side for me. > > [...] > > > Can anyone who is interested in reviewing the document please contact me? > > > I'll send you the document for a quick review. > > > > Did anyone get in touch with you about this? > > Hi Branden, > > Yes, I did get a an initial response from MJRay and sent him the document. But > am still waiting for some follow-up feedback on the document itself. You might want to put out a renewed call, then. Perhaps MJ got swamped. (I know I sometimes do.) -- G. Branden Robinson| I am only good at complaining. Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Dan Jacobson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Linuxsampler license
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 10:31:30AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote: > It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to > the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL. The > "NON COMMERCIAL"-exception has been added to the cvs version and is > reflected on the homepage also. [SNIP] I agree with your assessment. I would direct the upstream authors to David Wheeler's essay on this very subject: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html I will also note that by using the GPL, they will very likely get the community's support in identifying any infringements that occur by commercial distributors. I suspect this is less likely with a home-grown license, which many sympathetic users may not take the time to understand. Moreover, both the FSF and Harald Welte have successfully pursued infringment claims against people who violate the GPL. According to Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the FSF, they prefer to settle things simply by asking for, and getting compliance with the license's terms[1][2]; Mr. Welte has successfully gotten a court injunction on at least one occasion I can think of[3]. [1] http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html [2] http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html [3] http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html -- G. Branden Robinson|Build a fire for a man, and he'll Debian GNU/Linux |be warm for a day. Set a man on [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fire, and he'll be warm for the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Daniel Wallace case vs. FSF thrown out, ordered to pay costs
Courtesy of Groklaw: Daniel Wallace's suit against the FSF was dismissed and he has been ordered to pay the FSF's court costs. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127 Just thought I'd bring a ray of sunshine into Alexander Terekhov's day. -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hm, I could have sworn that the DFSG predated the Constitution and hence
> predated the existence of the three-clause BSD license. UCB dropped the
> advertising clause in July of 1999 and the DFSG were adopted in July of
> 1997 according to Wikipedia.
I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
information. There was more than one "BSD" license in use well before
USB's Office of Technology Licensing withdrew the 4-clause version.
Back in December 1997, Jordan Hubbard (one of those fringe figures in the
BSD scene ;-) ) said in comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc[1]:
: > Redistribution is not permitted, but if you do you must meet the
: > following
: > conditions:
: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
: >notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
: > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
: >notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
: >documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
:
: Correct and, oddly enough, also the exact text of the "new FreeBSD
: license", one we've agreed upon for new code not done by UCB. It
: contains only the first 2 of the original 4 clauses since we think that
: the stipulations for documentation are simply silly - I've been using a
: 2-clause version in all my own code for quite some time now.
I haven't taken the trouble to browse ancient FreeBSD CVS repositories to
see when the FreeBSD committers started actually applying their 2-clause
variant, but I hope you'll concede that it's much more likely than you
thought it was, given that Hubbard's language ("quite some time now") and
this evidence that BSD licenses without the advertising clause were in use
a year and a half before you thought they were.
> Hence, I assumed the BSD license as referred to in the DFSG must,
> regardless of what the web site currently links to, actually refer to the
> 4-clause license since that's the only thing that existed at the time.
>
> Am I missing something?
Yes; I think you are insufficiently cognizant of the proliferation history
of BSD license variants.
The BSD advertising clause was considered obnoxious by some hackers well
before the UCB OTL retroactively cancelled it; your analysis presumes that
people only did anything about it only after the University of California
showed the way. I think this inverts cause and effect, and I doubt that
the OTL would have bothered taking such an action without pressure from the
community.
(I have heard rumors that the OTL was in large part persuaded to drop the
advertising clause because of threatened counter-litigation by a party that
was violating it, who made an apparently strong argument that the clause
was unenforceable under U.S. law. Unfortunately, despite poking around for
this over the years and talking to some luminaries who might have been
aware of it--though not William Hoskins himself--I have been unable to
substantiate it. If this turns out to be true, Debian should not be
recommending as a best practice licensing provisions which are legally void
significant jurisdictions like the United States.)
(Why isn't this in -legal? Followups set.)
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>#1/1
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc/msg/0946381c11c31f74
--
G. Branden Robinson| The Bible is probably the most
Debian GNU/Linux | genocidal book ever written.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Noam Chomsky
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
[You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both
lists.]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
> > information. There was more than one "BSD" license in use well before
> > USB's Office of Technology Licensing withdrew the 4-clause version.
>
> [snip]
>
> While this is very interesting (I was aware of some of this, but not all
> of it), and I appreciate the time that you took to write it up, I think
> that:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
>
> shows that indeed the original BSD license to which the DFSG was linked
> was the four-clause version. (Thanks to Charles Plessey for uncovering
> that.)
>
> The version in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is very specifically the UCB
> version,
A major point of this whole discussion is that there is no "the UCB
version". There have been multiple BSD licenses, even promulgated by the
single source we call the University of California at Berkeley.
> not any of the other versions, and my assumption was that that had
> historically also been the case (since it wouldn't make sense to me to
> move from a less specific copyright holder to a more specific one).
[...]
> Certainly agreed; however, I was specifically talking about the UCB
> version as seen in /usr/share/common-licenses, so I was really being
> inaccurate with my original statement.
The copyright line in /usr/share/common-licenses should be made generic, or
better yet, not even be present. Much of the benefit of the
common-licenses directory is lost if it can serve as a stand-in for
particular licenses *as applied by particular copyright holders*.
> > (I have heard rumors that the OTL was in large part persuaded to drop
> > the advertising clause because of threatened counter-litigation by a
> > party that was violating it, who made an apparently strong argument that
> > the clause was unenforceable under U.S. law. Unfortunately, despite
> > poking around for this over the years and talking to some luminaries who
> > might have been aware of it--though not William Hoskins himself--I have
> > been unable to substantiate it. If this turns out to be true, Debian
> > should not be recommending as a best practice licensing provisions which
> > are legally void significant jurisdictions like the United States.)
>
> Note that I have never argued that Debian should be recommending the
> four-clause BSD license as best licensing practice. It manifestly isn't.
> Only that it is and has been DFSG-free since the beginning of the concept.
First, I think you are reading far more deliberation into where the Debian
Project has pointed web links in the past, and what it's put into
/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, than is warranted.
If I were to write some code and license it under the BSD license (in the
terms spelled out in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD), package it, and have
my debian/copyright file refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, that
would not mean that the Regents hold the copyright on my code, nor would
such an action on my part transfer the copyright to them.
Secondly, phraseology like "is and has been" ("and will be for all time!"
usually follows in arguments like this), denies the very real phenomenon
that humans learn over time.
It would not surprise me if a majority of Debian Developers in 1997, if
surveyed on the subject, would hold the 4-clause BSD license to be
DFSG-free (with degrees of passion ranging from "yeah, I guess so" to
"hell, yeah! It's way better than that GPL crap![1]").
I would suggest that our experiences with the GNU FDL, and with the
XFree86's projects relicensing of its code base, have taught us just how
onerous mandatory invariant testimonials can be. While some folks may feel
that Debian was an outlier with respect to our dissent on the GNU FDL
front, it's pretty difficult to make that argument about the revised
XFree86 license, whose resemblance to the 4-clause BSD license is much more
clear. (In fact, that was one of David Dawes's ultimately futile arguments
for trying to get the community to accept his license as free.)
If I'm not mistaken, I have argued on -legal in the past that having
section 10 of the DFSG has turned out to be a bad idea, because people
misread "examples" as "paragons".
I think it is instructive that every single license we identified in 1997
as a good example of a free software license has seen significant revision.
The 4-clause BSD license has evolved into 3-clause and 2-clause variants,
dropping various restrictions; the Perl
Re: Bug#210779: libtunepimp1: give me the license
[Followups set.] On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 09:46:03PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > > Debian distributes packages as part of the Debian distribution, not > > (really) as parts intended to be used on their own. > > Fetching individual packages is the canonical way of getting them. DSAs > specifically suggest doing so, and some programs are available only from > the Debian archive. And Debian always provides the source packages as well. > > If people wish to circumvent the tools which enforce this consensus... > > I know of no such tools. Ftp and http work just fine, without requiring > any circumvention at all. It is perfectly possible to retrieve GPL-licensed binary code without a copy of its license text, even from the Free Software Foundation. An exchange long ago in IRC illustrated this: lftp ftp.gnu.org cd /bin Manoj: no, don't do it!!! get ls 29404 bytes transferred in 1 second (21.5K/s) the FSF has abandoned me, where are my rights? can I sue them for GPL violation? > You can do what you want. However, every one of my GPL licensed packages > contains GPL licensed work of which I am author and I want my license to > accompany it. It will and should, in the source package. Debian binary packages are intended to be installed to Debian systems, all of which contain a copy of the GNU GPL which corresponds to your software. > "COPYING" is the name commonly applied by authors to the file containing > the GPL. It belongs in usr/share/doc/. It most certainly does > not belong in debian/copyright. I disagree. Providing a single copy in /usr/share/common-licenses for Debian binary packages is perfectly adequate. > If you feel strongly about the wasted bytes write a patch for dpkg to > identify copies of the GPL and replace them with symlinks. Your viewpoint appears to be a minority one. -- G. Branden Robinson|I must confess to being surprised Debian GNU/Linux |by the magnitude of incompatibility [EMAIL PROTECTED] |with such a minor version bump. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Manoj Srivastava pgpEhGCHnPjbP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "Common software" (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)
On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 10:16:59PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> It is nice in French, too, and it carries the memory of many important
> historical events ("La Commune" was the name of the first elected
> public body in Paris during the French Revolution).
But in the U.S., the term is associated with the activities of "dirty
hippies".
Do not underestimate the amount of knee-jerk hysteria associated with
anything that smacks of socialism or communism in the United States.
(For that matter, never underestimate the amount of knee-jerk hysteria
in the U.S. generally.)
In U.S. culture, I think one will always make more headway with the
"freedom" meme than with the "communitarian" meme. Furthermore, we[1]
vastly prefer the illegitimate exercise of corporate power to the
illegitimate exercise of state power. I suspect, though I am not sure,
that this results from a confusion of the so-called "Protestant work
ethic" with the pecuniary successes of captialist tycoons. That every
wealthy person in America has "earned" his money though personal merit
and hard work is a myth that you challenge at your peril.[2]
We're getting off-topic for -legal...
[1] speaking for the ignorant masses that watch Fox News, not for myself
nor, most likely, a majority of Debian developers in the U.S.[3]
[2] Which is, of course, perfectly consistent with the Bush
administration's and its "neo-conservative" puppet masters' efforts
to completely repeal state taxes, and both Democratic and Republican
support for perpetual copyrights. It's awfully hard work opening the
envelopes from the bank reporting the deposit of royalties earned by
one's ancestors.
[3] though it is known that Ben Collins claims to have voted for George
W. Bush -- tee hee
--
G. Branden Robinson|Imagination was given man to
Debian GNU/Linux |compensate for what he is not, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |a sense of humor to console him for
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |what he is.
pgpUapEpPtDuB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 09:46:23PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote: > I find it strange that this issue continue to comes up on > debian-legal, which is clearly not the place to discuss changing the > DFSG, or deciding which bits on the CDs the DFSG should apply to. I don't. It's far easier to bellyache, and leave unchallenged one's own presumption that Debian should ship any sort of w4r3z in main as long as it isn't a "program" is one's own vague conception, than it is to come up with a coherent and closely-reasoned statement of project policy. -- G. Branden Robinson| Men are born ignorant, not stupid. Debian GNU/Linux | They are made stupid by education. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Bertrand Russell http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpnyhlyRGwTy.pgp Description: PGP signature
[OFFTOPIC] Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 04:27:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Indeed, that standpoint of bodily integrity is one of the things that > makes sex so much fun, that one is freely giving it up, and the other > person doesn't have any right to it. Boy, you really *are* a monk, if you think of sex as something which necessarily implies the violation of someone's "bodily integrity". :) Then again, given some of the sickos we have in this Project, that may actually be the case a significant proportion of the time when Debian developers have sex. 8-) "Are you now or have you ever been a sicko?" -- G. Branden Robinson| What influenced me to atheism was Debian GNU/Linux | reading the Bible cover to cover. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Twice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- J. Michael Straczynski pgp3Be0x5wQ6J.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[RMS and Walter Landry omitted from CC list]
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:17:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
> >> do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL
> >> (without expecting it to change) in Debian, please write to me and
> >> tell me. (I am not subscribed to debian-legal and could not handle
> >> the volume of mail.) But before you send it, please see if I have
> >> sent a further message to debian-legal saying "enough!"
> >
> > Your question has already been posed, and the answer is found here
> >
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html
>
> No, the question was (carefully?) biased, ruling out several options.
If your thesis is true, we'd expect to have seen many more votes for
option 4 ("none of the above"). Only 2 of the 63 votes counted (3.17%)
selected that option.
If you think the ballot was biased, perhaps you should support your
argument by identifying the premises that you think were illegitimate.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist: It ain't a sin if you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't get caught.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Anthony Davidson
pgpvg5Y1MZpUI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 03:19:56PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Boy, you really *are* a monk, if you think of sex as something which > > necessarily implies the violation of someone's "bodily integrity". :) > > I think you've read my words wrongly. I'm saying that sex involves > permitting someone to do something to one's body, such that if you > didn't grant permission, it would be a violation of bodily integrity. Stop parsing my jokes out of existence! :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Men are born ignorant, not stupid. Debian GNU/Linux | They are made stupid by education. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Bertrand Russell http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpXl0q0bHuXp.pgp Description: PGP signature
the LPPL and DFSG 4's patch clause
[RMS removed from CC list] On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 03:21:27PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Yes, there are gray areas where it is hard to decide. I had to think > > for months about whether the TeX license qualified as free, since it > > makes the whole of the original TeX source code invariant. And I had > > to think for weeks about a LaTeX license, that required changing the > > name of any file that you modify. I eventually concluded that LaTeX > > was free despite this requirement, but only because it has a remapping > > feature that lets you say "Use file myfoo.sty when the document asks > > for foo.sty". > > We have come to basically exactly the same conclusion about these > cases. Not true. We reached the conclusion that a requirement to rename files was a functional, technological restriction (as opposed to a legal restricition like "rename the copyrighted work"), and asked the LaTeX Project to remove that restriction[1] from the LPPL. It is in fact gone in the latest draft of the LPPL which they submitted to us in July. You'll have to go back approximately a year to find this discussion, though; it was taken off-list for several months while Jeff Licquia worked with Frank Mittelbach and some other folks from the LaTeX Project. [...] > The DFSG says that we must have the right to modify everything, at > least by the use of patch files. Yes, but I'd plan for a future where that's not the case, as the exercise of that escape clause causes us to ship non-free materials in source packages, even in main. I *personally* think that's a bad idea. [1] More precisely, we said we didn't think we could accept the LPPL as a DFSG-free license if it retained that restriction; as far as I can tell, we have always respected the right of the LaTeX Project to put whatever they like in their license document(s). -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgplB38O0pzp8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unidentified subject!
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:58:01PM -0700, Brian C wrote: > I think answers to these questions are critical if progress is to > be made. If the FSF simply says, "This is our license. Now it is > solely up to you to include manuals licensed in this way or not." > then I think it is pretty clear that the consensus here will not > favor the GFDL. This would be a shame both because of the enormous > work it would create in replacing manuals, and because I still > believe that with several tweaks to the GFDL many here would find > it DFSG-consistent. Fortunately, it is not as much work as we might fear. At least four GNU Manuals that have recently had Invariant Sections added to them and were relicensed under the GNU FDL were DFSG-free in earlier versions. Search the archives of this list for "traditional GNU documentation license". However, important works like the GNU Emacs manual, _Using and Porting GNU CC_, and _The GNU C Library Reference Manual_ have had invariant sections for several years at least. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpwRPyHs4Y1S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Export clauses in XFree86 licensing
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:19:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > I just discovered that some of the copyright statements in xfree86's > copyright file have clauses that we usually consider non-free. > Normally I'd just file a bug, but given that the maintainer of xfree86 > is commonly known to know what he's doing, I'll ask here in advance: > What is it that I am missing? Did we change our interpretation > recently such that the clauses below now meet the DFSG? Please don't make any assumption that I knew what I was doing there. :) Getting a comprehensive list of all licenses applicable to the bits in XFree86 has been a major in the ass and even today I'm not sure it's complete (the debian/copyright file in the 4.3.0 pre-releae packages is 1,327 lines). I'd appreciate a re-analysis of the following. As an interested party I will sit it out if I can, and act upon the consensus of the participants in the discussion. > (from the "GLX PUBLIC LICENSE", and as far as I can eyeball also repeated > verbatim in the "CID FONT CODE PUBLIC LICENSE":) I believe that's the case because these are really just copies of the "IBM Public License", a.k.a. "Common Public License", with the names changed to protect the guilty. > 7. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all > applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of > the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import > control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. > Recipient may not distribute Subject Software that (i) in any way infringes > (directly or contributorily) the rights (including patent, copyright, trade > secret, trademark or other intellectual property rights of any kind) of any > other person or entity or (ii) breaches any representation or warranty, > express, implied or statutory, which under any applicable law it might be > deemed to have been distributed. > > 8. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient at any time has knowledge of any one > or more third party claims that reproduction, modification, use, distribu- > tion, import or sale of Subject Software (including particular functionality > or code incorporated in Subject Software) infringes the third party's intel- > lectual property rights, Recipient must place in a well-identified web page > bearing the title "LEGAL" a description of each such claim and a description > of the party making each such claim in sufficient detail that a user of the > Subject Software will know whom to contact regarding the claim. Also, upon > gaining such knowledge of any such claim, Recipient must conspicuously > include the URL for such web page in the Exhibit A notice required under Sec- > tions 2 and 3, above, and in the text of any related documentation, license > agreement or collateral in which Recipient describes end user's rights relat- > ing to the Subject Software. If Recipient obtains such knowledge after it > makes Subject Software available to any other person or entity, Recipient > shall take other steps (such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or news- > groups) reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Subject Soft- > ware that new knowledge has been obtained. > > (From the "SGI FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE B"): > > 7. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient learns of any third party claim > that any disposition of Covered Code and/or functionality wholly or > partially infringes the third party's intellectual property rights, > Recipient will promptly notify SGI of such claim. -- G. Branden Robinson|Computer security is like an onion: Debian GNU/Linux |the more you dig in, the more you [EMAIL PROTECTED] |want to cry. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Cory Altheide pgpDFKxnubvDt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF [Was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal]
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Oh, wow, I'm not sure anybody was expecting *months*. > > That helps, anyway. If we had tried to go ahead, it's pretty much > guaranteed that some people would have used your recent mails as an > excuse to delay even longer; they can't get away with that now. Bwa ha ha ha. *That* remains to be seen. People will get away with whatever they are permitted to get away with. It's up to those of us who care about clause 1 of the Social Contract to bring it to the attention of those who don't. When others fail to lead by example, it falls to us to do so. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Export clauses in XFree86 licensing
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:19:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > I just discovered that some of the copyright statements in xfree86's > copyright file have clauses that we usually consider non-free. [...] > (from the "GLX PUBLIC LICENSE", and as far as I can eyeball also repeated > verbatim in the "CID FONT CODE PUBLIC LICENSE":) [...] > 7. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient learns of any third party claim > that any disposition of Covered Code and/or functionality wholly or > partially infringes the third party's intellectual property rights, > Recipient will promptly notify SGI of such claim. Okay, well, it's been a couple of days, and we appear to not have just consensus but unanimity. All three of the clauses you cite fail the DFSG. (This was my opinion as well upon reading them closely, but as I said before, I have a vested interest in the outcome and preferred not to influence the discussion.) Please file a bug report against the "xfree86" package and include a reference to this thread's URL on lists.debian.org. I will get started identifying which code is affected by the various licenses and who the current upstream is for these works. I think most the stuff under the licenses in question in part of the GL implementation in XFree86, and therefore probably affects the Mesa packages as well. I suspect, though I'm not sure yet, that the best approach may be not to request amendment of the licenses themselves from the large and heavily-legal-staffed corporations that are using them, but rather to request dual licensing of the works in question, probably under the LGPL. We can use the Mozilla Project as an example. I would appreciate help with this project, if anyone's inclined. I dangle the carrot of commit access to the X Strike Force Subversion repository to tempt you! Isn't it temping? Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Henning. -- G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Wolfenstein 3D license
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:21:48AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote: > I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for > release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the > license. Could you please post the text of the license to the mailing list in plain text format? I tried to look at it, but: > Current directory: /tmp/branden/wvMime-branden-16115 > Some problem running latex. > Check for Errors in license.log > Continuing... > Conversion into dvi failed > Could not translate into Postscript > /usr/bin/wvPS: line 173: 16134 Segmentation fault "$wv_exec" $wv_opts -x > "$xmlcfg" -d "$t_dir" -b "$name" "$i_file" -s "$s_img" >"$t_dir"/"$name".tex -- G. Branden Robinson| It's not a matter of alienating Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | license their software however we http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:15:24PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Saturday 20 September 2003 18:47, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section? > > And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section? > > Mathieu, are you too lazy to find by yourself that both sentences appear in > the "Distribution" section of the GNU Emacs Manual, which is an Invariant > Section, as stated in http://www.gnu.org/manual/emacs-21.2/text/ > emacs.txt.gz ? Please, let's keep the rhetorical questions to a minimum. Obviously, the answer to your question is "yes". Okay, let's *not* keep the rhetorical questions to a minimum. Why should Mathieu argue from knowledge when he can argue from ignorance? :) -- G. Branden Robinson| The Rehnquist Court has never Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal statute it [EMAIL PROTECTED] | did not like. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Dean signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[RMS not CCed] On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:27:14PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software. > > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as > > synonymous. > > In that case, the DFSG prohibits their distribution outright. > > That's one way to interpret it, but I don't think it is the best way. > The DFSG is written as if the system consists entirely of programs and > contains nothing else. But there surely was never an intention to > develop a system that didn't have manuals and essays and licenses in > it. I think that this was an error of thinking at the time. Interestingly, there were more DFSG-free manuals copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation in 1998 than there are today. As I've noted elsewhere, the FSF has begun adding Invariant Sections to manuals that formerly had none when they relicensed those same manuals under the GNU FDL. So, when we adopted the DFSG, complete with its understanding that all bits on a distribution CD-ROM that weren't required legal notices were "software" that had to meet our criteria for software freedom, it was perfectly consistent with the notion that manuals would be on those CD-ROMs. Even manuals copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation. -- G. Branden Robinson|Somebody once asked me if I thought Debian GNU/Linux |sex was dirty. I said, "It is if [EMAIL PROTECTED] |you're doing it right." http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Woody Allen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "GNU is perfect" and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:53:48PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>>man of the street to give coins to some kind of IRS while she get > >>>very > >>What does IRS stand for in France? I can't find a decoding of that. > >I forgot 2 words, -> "IRS registered charity" > > That still doesn't explain WTF IRS is. IRS = Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. bureaucracy in charge of collecting U.S. Federal income taxes. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/ -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Unidentified subject!
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition) > >you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of > >Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it? > > See http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/about#what > > >Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own > >logo must be free software > > Has Debian taken a decision on that? Yes. http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0002 Also see: http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0005 (Please forgive Darren Benham's inability to spell the word "dual".) -- G. Branden Robinson| The more ridiculous a belief Debian GNU/Linux | system, the higher the probability [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of its success. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Wayne R. Bartz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "Software" and its translations (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote: > - "un logiciel" can even be used to mean "a software program", whereas > the phrase "a software" sounds awkward to me in English (but then > again, I'm not a native English speaker, and maybe "software" is a > countable noun -- can you say "two softwares"?). No. "Software" is a collective noun, like "information" or "stuff". If I never see these words butchered again into bastardized forms like "softwares", "informations", and "stuffs"[1], it will be too soon. [1] though "foodstuffs" is a valid (if somewhat archaic) term -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PennMUSH license concerns.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:41:52PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: [snip] > See above; the concern is not over any specific piece of code (in that the > only ones I can point to, I'm fairly sure the license can be clarified > for), but in whether debian-legal is willing to accept the statements of > (in particular) Lydia Leong and David Passmore on the matter, since they > can be demonstrated as false in at least one circumstance, today. > > In fairness, in terms of *probability*, any random bit of code taken from > 2.2.5 is *likely* to be under an acceptable license, stipulating that the > 2.0 relicense is acceptable (which I'm not contradicting); the 3.x code, > even moreso (since much of the reason 2.2.5 was released had to do with > updates Unoff 1 made after a long period of issues with the maintenence of > the official 2.2 series, but the 3.x series rewrote a significant amount of > code). Unless PennMUSH happened to get a poison pill, it wouldn't actually > have any problems (unlike TinyMUSH 3.x, which, last I looked, still did). > > To be honest, I have my doubts as to whether it would even be possible to > track down every possible incidence, and I suspect that the only practical > solution, given the code history, would be to take a "solve problems as > they appear" approach - if someone asserts an issue, either get them to > relicense the code, or have upstream replace the code. > > If debian-legal is comfortable with that approach, I'm certainly happy to > bribe, cajole, and nerf-bat Mr. Grizzard until he agrees to a relicense > under suitable terms, and thus resolve the only outstanding issue I have > concrete evidence of (this d-l decision would presumably also apply to the > ITP for TinyMUSH 3, as well). In my opinion, we have made a reasonable and good-faith effort to verify the licensing. If the issue has been researched, and no one can point to any explicit license problems, then that should be sufficient. It is not common practice in the free software community to have contributors swear out an affidavit regarding the copyright ancestry of their contributions. If some copyright holder somwhere feels his privileges are being infringed, then the onus is on them to bring the issue to our attention. We have been anything but careless. I do not think it is reasonable to expect the Debian Project or the other PennMUSH copyright holders to go to lengths usually reserved for tracking down wanted criminals to locate other copyright holders whose intentions can be reasonably conjectured. Note the contrast between this situation and the Sun RPC license issue, where the explicit terms of the only known license under which the code has been distributed are clearly non-DFSG-free, but we're keeping the code in main based on the hearsay testimony of unknown individuals attesting to a "clarification" whose terms are themselves unknown. But hey, if that's good enough for the Release Manager and Project Leader, I guess it should be good enough for the rest of us, right? -- G. Branden Robinson| Human beings rarely imagine a god Debian GNU/Linux | that behaves any better than a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | spoiled child. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:53:56AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Not entirely. My proposal to remove non-free from our archives and amend > the social contract to state that it will no longer be available on our FTP > servers is what is in the air. [s/state that it will no longer/no longer state that it will/, as you notetd.] > We can, without making any change to the social contract or requiring any > GR, create a separate /debian-non-free archive on our mirror system, and > change the base system to provide no reference to it. And likewise, we can amend the Social Contract to longer engrave in iron our commitment to continue distributing non-free software. In other words, we can make it no longer a violation of the Social Contract to stop providing FTP access to a non-free software archive, but continue to provide it for other reasons. That issue is more personally important to me. I want us to be able to evaluate the utility of non-free on purely pragmatic grounds, instead of locking ourselves via the Social Contract into distributing non-free via FTP. We could then either cut non-free loose as an ordinary operational decision, establish some sort of criteria under which it would be "automatically" dropped, or put non-free under the control of some delegate or committee. Essentially, divorcing non-free from the Social Contract gives us *more* freedom to deal with it as we wish, not less. -- G. Branden Robinson|To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux |means not assisting people they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"
[RMS not CCed] On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:57:37AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant > sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. > > This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections > to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. Well, there you have it, folks. Richard's feet weren't *really* planted before, but they are now, and it's *all our fault*. :) Maybe he should thank us for aiding him in maintaining his integrity. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[OFFTOPIC] Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:08:59AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney > Spears. Only with the sound off... -- G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux |confuse me with the facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "Software" and its translations (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:46:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > No. "Software" is a collective noun, like "information" or "stuff". > > No, "software" is a mass noun, like "information" or "stuff". > > A collective noun is a word like "committee", which is singular in > form but refers to a plurality of individuals. In some dialects > (notably in England) collective nouns get plural verbs. Curses! Foiled again! -- G. Branden Robinson|It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux |screaming mob pounding on a greasy [EMAIL PROTECTED] |spot on the pavement, where used to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |lie the carcass of a dead horse. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Starting to talk
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 09:24:12AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > PS: Am I the only one with the impression every single thing must be > repeated to RMS AND yeupou AND Fedor Zuev AND Sergey foobar and any > other blind GFDL advocate who is told Debian is BAD, because they want > to drop FREE (it is written free on it, so it is certainly free) > documentation from the GREAT GNU project ? No, you're not the only one with that impression. -- G. Branden Robinson| Human beings rarely imagine a god Debian GNU/Linux | that behaves any better than a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | spoiled child. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL
[RMS not CCed] On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:31PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > FYI, that's not going to convince anyone. > > We could all speculate about what might or might not convince certain > other persons, but doing so is attempting to speak for them, so let's > not do it. Hmm. By declaring himself "not on speaking terms with [me]", Didn't RMS presumptively conclude that anything I could possibly say would not convince him of anything, and thus he is attempting to speak for me? Alternatively, perhaps RMS is concerned that I *might* persuade him of something, and has decided he doesn't want to run that risk. I find this interpretation difficult to swallow, personally. -- G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Oscar Wilde http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:34:26AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:31PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > > FYI, that's not going to convince anyone. > > > > > > We could all speculate about what might or might not convince certain > > > other persons, but doing so is attempting to speak for them, so let's > > > not do it. > > > > Hmm. By declaring himself "not on speaking terms with [me]", Didn't RMS > > presumptively conclude that anything I could possibly say would not > > convince him of anything, and thus he is attempting to speak for me? > > The reason why he does not want to talk with you have nothing to do > with your arguments/point of view. Oh, well, that's a relief. It's much better that he dislikes me due to my height or the color of my skin or something. I'll give you a hint, Mathieu, since you have a thick skull: All RMS knows about me are my arguments. I've never met the man. -- G. Branden Robinson| Don't use nuclear weapons to Debian GNU/Linux | troubleshoot faults. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- US Air Force Instruction 91-111 http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 06:58:28PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Apparently you need an hint too: this is about your harsh and > aggressive attitude. ...which is irrelevant to the cogency of my arguments, or lack thereof. But in actual fact I've been unfailingly polite to RMS, as far as I can recall. What I have not been is obsequiously deferential. -- G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too long to fit [EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"
[RMS not CCed] On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:09:20PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Perhaps I misundertood those messages a few months ago. Or perhaps > you misunderstood them, or misunderstood my reference to them, or you > forgot about them. As human beings, we cannot avoid the risk of > forgetting and misunderstanding. But we can avoid smearing other > people by calling them liars on hardly any grounds. Well, it's good to see that RMS is not universally intolerant. Just intolerant of me... Will someone friendly with RMS let me know in the event he ever decides we're "on speaking terms" again? -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
[Followups set.] Compare: http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html with: http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=260 This change was quite recent (since 14 August 2003), if we are to accept as true the assertion in the first comment on the article at: http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=260 -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:23:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Compare: > > http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html > > with: > > http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=260 You know, I just love how screen is always "forgetting" what the X selection is. Anyway, I meant: with: http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html ...not like that was difficult to figure out. -- G. Branden Robinson|To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux |means not assisting people they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the > > DFSG manuals are not free. > > (Because they fail the GFDL, of course.) /me does a double take /me does a triple take /me gives up and backs slowly away from these madmen :) -- G. Branden Robinson|Lowery's Law: Debian GNU/Linux |If it jams -- force it. If it [EMAIL PROTECTED] |breaks, it needed replacing anyway. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
a DFSG/GNU FDL quick reference webpage
I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links to a document "summarizing Debian's position" on the GNU FDL as it relates to the DFSG. As we know, there isn't any one canonical document, but I think we've reached the point where a few mailing list messages and existing essays cover most of the ground which gets tiresome re-covered in this mailing list over and over again. I have, therefore, updated my FDL webpage: http://people.debian.org/~branden/fdl/ If you have additional links to suggest, please do so in reply to this message (replying to the list is fine). I don't intend to add any essays or position statements to the body of that page; I'd rather it served as a jumping-off point for further reading. I'd also be happy to post links to any essays authored by people speaking for the FSF in rebuttal to the issues Debian has raised. Unfortunately, I don't know of any. If you do, please bring them to my attention. -- G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a Debian GNU/Linux | crutch for weak-minded people who [EMAIL PROTECTED] | need strength in numbers. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Jesse Ventura signature.asc Description: Digital signature
