Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote: * Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com [120915 20:38]: I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D: * You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or * intended for use in the design, construction, operation or * maintenance of any nuclear facility. Steve Langasek wrote: This is a standard No warranty clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US. It is not a restriction placed on the use of the software in nuclear facilities by the copyright holder, it is a CYA statement that the software has not been approved *by the government regulatory agencies* for use in nuclear facilities in the US. Warranty disclaimers are fine under the DFSG. While that may[*] have been the intent, it specifically states that the software is not [...] licensed. It is explicitly stating that Sun was not granting the BSD license, or any other license, to those in that field of endeavor. Since the license is the only thing that grants permission to make copies of the software, those in that field of endeavor are not permitted to make copies. If they are explicitly stating they were not granting a license, why did they grant a license just in the lines before that? There is no restriction in the whole license text w.r.t. this field of endeavor. Only a statement that one should know that the software is not designed, licensed or intended for use there. And right there is where we stop. The software is not licensed for use in a nuclear facility. You have no grant of license in that context and may not use the software in that context. Any use of the software in a nuclear facility is forbidden as you are not licensed to use it there. This is discrimination against a field of endeavor (work in a nuclear facility) and is not DFSG Free. As for copyrights being granted by licenses, that's the very foundation of the GPL. General Public License. It is a grant of copyright as long as you adhere to the license terms. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnyuc0r1soestzxpj5ywya+eh0iqyj5pudcdq6ot0v9s...@mail.gmail.com
Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:44:17AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:59:13PM +0100, Sian Mountbatten wrote: Dear List Please find attached a copy of the copyright in all the source files of the algol68toc compiler. You will note that the licence accords with the DFSG. I am of the opinion that the compiler package could go into the main Debian distribution. Please confirm. Sadly, I don't think we can :) INAL, so someone feel free to call me wrong. Comments inline. I'll call me wrong: 09:31 Ganneff svuorela: name the/a organisation, not your name. org: freedom fighters, inc. done. :) 09:31 Ganneff it doesnt want YOUR name, it wants A name for changes. i dont see a problem in that. just make it consistent Comments retracted. I'd not be so quick to retract those comments! I agree it fails the dissident test. One is not able to contribute anonymously. You must identify the organization you are a part of (and what is an organization, anyway?). And what do you do if you're not part of an organization? Are you required to identify yourself? If one must identify themselves a part of freedom fighters, inc. they open themselves to their changes being traced back to them along with a flag on them saying, I'm a freedom fighter. If they are not part of an organization, but other freedom fighter organizations are a part of the project, they become tied to those (perhaps, in the eyes of the government) through their explicit association with the project. I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test because there is no way for someone to contribute anonymously, and, on the face of it, no way to contribute without being a member of an organization, a term the license fails to define. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnyskad-_wy7cq7zzdnp2_5akn0soxcvjg2hexpe498f...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:29:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: The sensible *default* assumption is that when an upstream asserts that the license on their work is $foo, they know what they're talking about Yes, on their work. even when portions are copyright other people/entities. No, this is not a sensible default assumption. I agree with the distinction Bart is drawing here. While that distinction may hold in the general case, it is nonsensical in this case. It is nonsensical to assume, by default, that an EPS image produced by Adobe Illustrator cannot be distributed in whatever manner the creator desires unencumbered by any copyright assertions by Adobe on embedded PostScript. In fact, this FAQ entry from Adobe's site[1] implies redistribution of user created content: What is Adobe® Illustrator® CS6 and who is it for? Adobe Illustrator CS6 is the industry-standard vector graphics software, used worldwide by designers of all types who want to create digital graphics, illustrations, and typography for all kinds of media: print, web, interactive, video, and mobile. [1] http://www.adobe.com/products/illustrator/faq.html Take this sample document I crated in Microsoft Word for Mac 2011: athena:Documents cbell$ strings Manuscript\ Template.docx | grep opy Copyright 2007 Apple Inc., all rights reserved. athena:Documents cbell$ Are we honestly to believe that this document, the authorship of which is entirely mine, cannot be redistributed by me because Apple holds a copyright to it? That makes no sense whatsoever. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnytahgldy849yj9+uc6h8hrxefkx_vzvd5awklxg-pt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote: On Vi, 08 iun 12, 10:58:48, Hiroki Horiuchi wrote: After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition insufficient for Debian Project. Not in my opinion. Take the example of the GFDL: a document with invariant sections does not have freedom 3. AFAIR the FSF's stance is that documentation is not software. Debian's stance is that a truly free software also has free documentation[1] and the GPL can and should be used for that as well (or at least not use the restrictive options of the GFDL)[2][3] Here's the relevent section directly from the GFDL[5]: A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them. The Invariant Sections are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none. [5] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Basically, only Secondary sections can be invariant and Secondary sections can only outline the original author's connection to the subject matter, it can't contain any subject matter text at all (such inclusion is prohibited). I cannot think of a case where someone modifying the document would, when acting in a good faith manner, want to alter this text. Any alteration to this kind of text is, essentially, putting words in the mouth of the author. I do understand the Debian position, but I feel it's a solution looking for a problem. That said, I think the biggest unintended side-effect of Debian's position (and it's an ironic one) is that in this drive for purity, users are now *encouraged* to enable contrib and non-free in order to get access to documentation for their systems. The original intent was to bring cover Debian in an umbrella of purity with regards to Freedom, and the result is to encourage users to reject the Freedom offered through use of the main repository only in order to obtain something as basic as system documentation. Based on what is allowed in an invariant section, I can't see modification of those sections being ethical. I don't know, however, if they can be removed entirely (it would be reasonable to remove them if allowed, in my opinion). The license does indicate that a GFDL covered document might not contain any invariant sections -- would a GFDL document that has no invariant sections be considered Free under the current Debian guidelines? Or does the use of the GFDL at all automatically make the entire document non-free? [1] a complex software for which the only documentation is the source code is not very useful and there is no reason why the same liberties should not apply to documentation Those liberties do apply to the documention, as the parts of a GFDL document that actually document the software can never be declared invariant. That is forbidden by the license. See the example from the license itself: a textbook on mathematics cannot contain any mathematics in a secondary section, and only secondary sections may be invariant. [2] for an entity that preaches non-proliferation of licenses FSF has created quite a few... They have 4 licenses, all of which seem to serve a unique and necessary role: GPL, LGPL, AGPL, and GFDL. [3] before anyone here wants to argue that the GPL is meant for software only they should read it[4] Reading it or not, the author of the license has indicated that's his desire. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnyvb1vxscitqvfekkkcnpcucnn6v9zvgu8eg_oe3+x9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Minimized JavaScript in upstream tarball
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Dmitry Nezhevenko d...@inhex.net wrote: Upstream distributes in both source and minimized forms: http://masonry.desandro.com/jquery.masonry.min.js https://github.com/desandro/masonry/blob/master/jquery.masonry.js How this particular file should be handled? The only idea I've is to remove this file in my get-git-snapshot-source step and download right one instead. I don't see anything wrong with either file. It's under an MIT (i.e.; free) license and it's human readable source code. It's not even obfuscated -- it's just missing whitespace. I ran the obfuscated version through JSBeautifier[1] and got something that looks like the non-obfuscated version[2]. [1] http://jsbeautifier.org/ [2] http://paste.debian.net/165689/ While it may be ugly, it's certainly easy to clean up. I don't know if there are any pretty printers in Debian for JavaScript but someone with a text editor can easily re-insert the whitespace without too much trouble. How does this obfuscation (I use quotes because I don't believe it's obfuscated) prevent its inclusion in Debian directly? Why does special consideration need to be made for this file? -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnyt2s-be64xfi0-4kue2pat14f7yrdmdj1hxfd6ybg9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Creative Commons 4.0 BY-NC-SA draft available
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: Sadly Creative Commons are still peddling non-free licenses :( https://lwn.net/Articles/490202/ Why do you find this sad? There are licenses needed for things other than free software. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOEVnYsM4bnfrncBg_9yEj4h8Zow=5F=bmxlnhugrx4lk7o...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Patents and Multimedia codecs in Debian
2012/3/28 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) r...@linux-delhi.org: On Wednesday 28 Mar 2012, Simon McVittie wrote: On 28/03/12 07:40, Alexey Eromenko wrote: The Debian project includes a number of patent-encumbered Multimedia codecs As mentioned in Debian's patent policy http://www.debian.org/legal/patent point 3, please refrain from posting patent concerns publicly or discussing patents outside of communication with legal counsel, where they are subject to attorney-client privilege. Transparency and public discussion are usually good things, but patents are an area where they can be harmful. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense. In essence, that is foreclosing all peer-to-peer discussion about patents in the context of Debian. I happen to be from a state that doesn't recognise software patents, and fail to see why the spectre of fear created by one single country should proscribe all free and open discussion and education about an issue that eventually (through Debian distributions) affects us all. It's not just one country, though[1]. While the spectre of fear may originate in the United States (and that's debatable) the infection has spread across the globe. [1] http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Countries_and_regions -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnytbwhgwtbb_k537w9akbskjzceafj3t_ts17pke3_m...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#666010: ITP: nvidia-texture-tools -- image processing and texture manipulation tools
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Lennart Weller l...@ring0.de wrote: Am 28.03.2012 01:01, schrieb Ben Hutchings: Since you've accepted as fact that this software infringes those patents, it looks like you're about to violate item 1 of the Debian patent policy. Ben. S3TC is not actively enforced by S3. And I took this thread [1] as a reference to create the ITP anyway. According to this thread from 2010 there are at least three other projects already using the S3TC algorithms. And there is more than one project which depends on this package. e.g. 0ad and wine [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/12/msg00062.html I think Ben's point is that the Debian Patent Policy[1] was published on February 19, 2012, and therefore would supersede any previous consensus regarding the inclusion of patent encumbered software where the included patents are not being actively enforced. Personally, I agree with the posters in the thread you cited[2]. If this is going to be the project's official position, it may as well close shop. [1] http://www.debian.org/legal/patent [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/12/msg00062.html P.S. My apologies to those who may be seeing this on debian-user as well. I accidentally posted my reply there by mistake. I am posting it here, as well, for the benefit of those who are not on debian-user. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOEVnYuqfUgTm=a__x6eei2p+zktxuy1qxfawzo7zrmxfxr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: license question
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors timo.lindf...@iki.fi wrote: Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs, i can consider i answered him. That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is What he really wants is to be obtuse. Just read his responses to commenters on that page. If, through his obstinance, he's not going to freely license his software, then do ask he asks and, [Sit] down and [think] about the problem for an hour or less, [and] probably come up with exactly [his] solution. He's not worth bothering with. Just re-impliment whatever it is he's done, license it properly, and move on. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnys7amd6d1sntpdvkb39-j5unoxyurqjbowelbtnv9r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Kay Hayen kayha...@gmx.de wrote: Hello Tanguy, Although you are free to sell this program according to the terms of the GPLv3, I would not like that, and this is why I chose this license, that should make most attempts of doing so non-viable. [or whatever similar text you may want to write] Since such a statement does not require anything, I think it should not render your program non-free, just programs suggesting that the user may thank the author by buying him a beer are free as long as this is a suggestion and not a requirement. The interesting part is contribution copyright assignment. I actually do _not_ want Nuitka to have to stay GPLv3 when it's ready. Then I _definitely_ want it to have another license, with ASF2.0 being the current front runner. I'm not a fan of copyright assignment, and would like to find (if possible) a solution that gives you what you need without requiring it. Requiring copyright assignment allows you to pull an Oracle. I mean no offense by that and I hope you understand my intent in saying that. Would it be possible to have, instead, a contributor agreement that allows contributors to retain copyright while at the same time granting you a non-transferable, non-revokable, exclusive right to relicense their contribution under the ASF2.0 license at a time of your choosing? This allows contributors to know what they're getting into. It allows you to transition smoothly from GPLv3 to ASF2.0 when you feel the time is right, while allowing contributors the comfort of retaining copyright to their code, knowing that they will not later face all their work being swallowed up as in, for example, OpenSolaris. This grant to you would be non-revokable (for your comfort) and non-transferrable (for the contributor's comfort). It would be exclusive to you as an agreement between you and the person submitting code to you. Is this sort of thing even workable? I'd be interested in the opinions d-l at large, as well. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOEVnYtpjzzZaP3F7QfXPeDi6mONH9muh0ifnb=eoy4y20w...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Are Web-API packages need to be in the 'main' repo ?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com wrote: so... what's the next step ? Open bug reports against those 'facebook' packages and ask maintainers to move it to 'contrib' repo ? The next step is there is no next step because this is a non-issue. A couple of people want to purge main of any software that's a client for a non-free web service but this desire, while one could argue it is noble, misses the point. The question of freeness or non-freeness in Debian has to do with licensing, and nothing to do with the uses to which software is put. If the program accessing the non-free service is free software, it goes in main, period. To require otherwise would require amending the Social Contract and a General Resolution to adopt the change. -- Chris
Re: Are Web-API packages need to be in the 'main' repo ?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 02:02 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote: | The question of freeness or non-freeness in Debian has | to do with licensing, and nothing to do with the uses to | which software is put. If the program accessing the | non-free service is free software, it goes in main, period. By this logic, should their be a contrib? I don't see why not. contrib is for software that meets free licensing guidelines but requires pulling in software from non-free to work. It's due to a dependency internal to the Debian archive as a whole, not an external reliance on a website or other service. I do understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree that accessing an external website can be construed as the website being a library -- the software within Debian runs regardless of the website or service being available (is it a good experience? Perhaps not!). The software in Debian is a client of the service, not a derived work of it. Consider a GPL licensed program that attempts to dynamically use a non-free web service. If the non-free component is unavailable, it can't run as expected, so it gracefully exits with an appropriate message. This is free? I do understand but the website or service is external to the Debian archive. The division between contrib and non-free is there for software that ships with the Debian distribution. It doesn't matter if the external website or service is free or non-free. One can argue that aside from sites licensed under the AGPL (and this is a stretch, since the operator of the site can take it offline), the entire web is non-free by this logic and so every network client within Debian should be in contrib. Regardless of the service being accessed, the operator of it can take it offline, effectively breaking the software that's shipping in Debian. Consider a GPL licensed program that attempts to dynamically use a non-free dynamic library. If the non-free component is unavailable, it can't run as expected, so it gracefully exits with an appropriate message. This is contrib? The dependencies for software in contrib are met by software in non-free. This dependency tree and the requirements for what needs to be installed on the local Debian system for software to work is entirely internal to the Debian archive and has no relationship to software or services that are not provided with Debian. Either it matters if the program actually works (uses to which it is put) or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter if the work actually runs, then Debian shouldn't be making the distinction between free and contrib distributions. Debian does need to make the distinction, because the distinction has to do with licensing only, not the uses to which software is put. If you enable contrib and disable non-free, you'll see how this dependency between the two works. You have control over the use of main, contrib, and non-free. You do not have control over the external sites and services that are accessed using Debian software. What happens if my application gets smart, it looks first for the proprietary dynamic link library; and if it isn't there, it uses a web service wrapper for that library? Would this move an application from contrib to free? This software would not install on a Debian system as software can't install unless its dependencies are met. You imply a dependency on a non-free component for a piece of contrib software. The software will not install unless non-free is enabled and the library is present in the non-free archive. This situation, while academically interesting, is one that cannot occur in Debian due to Debian policy. The proprietary library will always be present or the free software component simply will not install. | To require otherwise would require amending the Social Contract | and a General Resolution to adopt the change. I think the emergence of prolific proprietary WebAPIs are reason enough for Debian itself to evaluate what it wishes to do? Should Debian treat proprietary works differently based solely upon the technology used to access them? Debian doesn't treat with proprietary works outside of the archive of software it provides at all. I do understand where you're coming from and I agree that in concept it sounds like an interesting idea. However, I don't feel it's the right direction for Debian to take. I think a better solution is for Debian to relax its update policy and provide things like Pidgin updates as non-security releases in the event that the external service (in this case, it was Yahoo! and I got bit by it, too) changes their protocol(*). That the service changed their protocol does not in any way affect the licensing of the previous protocol's implementation in the Debian provided software. Again, I think by this logic, the entirety of software included in the Debian archive that is used
Re: Plugins for non-free software in orig.tar.gz
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Rudolf Polzer divver...@alientrap.orgwrote: I have another such case where I would be upstream. I currently have a library that I am the only copyright holder of. If you're the sole copyright holder, you can do whatever you like with the code. The license is 100% irrelevant as concerns anything you are doing with the code. Do I then get into trouble with the GPL, as the source tarball contains code that links to non-GPL compatible code? You can't get in trouble for anything you do with your own code to which you own the copyright. You only run into issues when you do something with code someone else holds copyright to. In this case, you're free to link OpenSSL against your own software, that belongs to you, to which you own the copyright. This BTW affects the FreeBSD project too The FreeBSD Foundation is free to do whatever they like with code they own the copyright to. They must adhere to any licenses for code they include in FreeBSD for which they do not own the copyright. -- Chris
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.auben%2bdeb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de writes: So there is only on step to do: Move d4x into the non-free archive. Take care: The fact that a work is non-free does not mean the Debian project has license to redistribute it in the ‘non-free’ section. Many works are so non-free that they cannot be legally redistributed at all by the Debian project. This part of the license seems to answer that question pretty clearly: /* WebDownloader for X-Window * * Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim * This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it * without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified * program but you can distribute unmodified program. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ ie; Not even a Debian Maintainer can modify the software to package it. So this software looks like a non-starter for inclusion in Debian, even in non-free. -- Chris
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an American, I cannot export cryptographic software. As a result, I don't work on it. That doesn't prevent me from building or modifying software that utilizes those components, as those components are imported. And you're required to offer that modified software to people in countries where cryptographic software is illegal solely because you have modified your server software that is using cryptographic code and allowing them to interact with it (even if said code is not invoked). You are importing and using crypto in the US which is perfectly fine. The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal for you. The GPL (all versions) does not place this requirement on you. You are free to import server software using crypto, modify it, and make that software available for interaction over a network without being required to re-export the software and thus the crypto it contains. As the AGPLv3 will force you, from the United States, to offer cryptographic software for export in the event that you modify server software using it and (make that software available for interaction over a network), it is forcing you to violate US law. I believe this is the point that Miriam Ruiz is making. Wether this is a problem or not is not something I am commenting on, however, I will add that I feel expecting Joe Developer to maintain an IP blacklist in order to avoid violating the law in their home countries (a solution you have suggested) *is* an onerous requirement. In order to make the source available to all users (in the absence of locking the entire non-US world out of your server), the law will have to be violated at least once (export/upload of the modified cryptographic containing source to a repository outside US territory). -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Bryan Donlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:15:35 -0400 Arc Riley wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Am I failing to comply with the license? First off, are you using the program on the network while on vacation? If not, there wouldn't be a violation, would there? If you are using it, by my reading you haven't violated the license, but cannot modify it further until you come back into compliance. If the license isn't being violated, what is there to come back into compliance with? A need to come back into compliance assumes non-compliance which assumes a license violation. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copy vs. (re)distribute
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: since I've got upstreams (having copied some code from others, that's why they aren't spelling it out directly) that aren't convinced that having the rights to copy, use, modify is insufficient to meet the DFSG. This is answered directly by DFSG §3: 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. The confusion seems to be a misunderstanding about the discrete rights that are under discussion. These rights are: * Copy - The right to make duplicates of the work * Use - The right to access/run/read/etc the work * Modify - The right to make changes to the work * Distribute - The right to transfer (modified or not) copies of the work to others Let's take Microsoft Windows as an example. Of the 4 above rights, I am granted 2 of them by Microsoft. I have the right to Use the software, and I have the right to Distribute the software. I do not have the right to Copy the software, and I do not have the right to Modify the software. What is the implication of this? If I want to distribute my copy of Windows, I must satisfy the requirements that I do not modify or copy it. In this case, I can do that by transferring all media, documentation, etc, to someone else, and destroy any copies of it that I have in my possession. This makes the software non-Free. Let's take Pine as another example. I retain the rights to Copy, Use, and Modify the software, but I do not enjoy the right to Distribute modified copies of the software, that is retained by the original authors (and thus why Pine is non-Free). It is imperative that the right to distribute derived works always follows the software, along with the rights to copy, use, and modify it, in order for the software to be Free. I'm sure my illustrations are overly simplistic, and I'd welcome any correction. I'm hopeful, however, that the meaning is clear, and hopefully clarifies things for your upstream to a reasonable degree. Disclaimers: IANADD, TINLA, IANAL, TINASOTODP -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KJV Bible - Crown Copyright in UK [was: Bug#338077: ITP: sword-text-kvj -- King James Version with Strongs Numbers and Morphology]
On 11/8/05, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:03:45PM +, W. Borgert wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: This makes the KJV of the bible non-free in GB and probably even illegal to distribute at all in GB, unless the Crown gives a blanket license for electronic distribution. Does it? ... Please investigate this before uploading to Debian. According to Christian belief, the bible is the word of God. According to Nietzsche (in 1882), God is dead. So the author of the bible is dead since at least 120 years. How can the copyright still hold? Your argument is flawed: G-od is the direct author of the *original* version of *part* the Bible, namely the Pentateuch. The KJV is a derivative work made in the early 1600s. And your argument is flawed. God himself didn't directly author any part of the Bible at all. ;-) According to Christian doctrine, God *inspired* various people to write the *entire Bible*. According to Jewish doctrine, the same holds true for the Torah. The KJV of the Bible was originally released in 1611 under the auspices of King James I (1566-1625, king 1603-1625). While purported to be a more or less direct translation, a strong case can be made that the KJV is more inspired by the original texts and that it is, indeed, a derived work. ;-) However, the material from which it is derived is not covered by any kind of copyright or license at all, thus the KJV cannot be licensed under the same terms as the original texts from which it was drawn. Regardless, religious belief and matters of faith have nothing to do with copyright law and have no bearing on this discussion. Assuming that the KJV is, indeed, non-free in Great Britain, I can't imagine it would be difficult to get permission from the crown to include it in Debian. ;-) -- Chris `The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On 11/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. Ubuntu does distribute sources; and in a quite reasonable fashion. Or should I consider this a GPL violation? Then, I hope dpkg copyright holders inforce their copyright. You need to find more important things to think about and hope for. -- Chris `The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona
Re: dual licensing
On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code By developer, do you mean copyright holder? He can legally do whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with. Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... -- Chris `The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona
Re: MySQL only useable for GPL clients?
On 10/13/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/11/05, Martin Koegler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html Under the laws of the GNU Republic (MySQL district), all works are derived (in metaphysical sense) from some other preexisting GPL'd work(s) and hence fall under the GPL right from the beginning... And crack cocaine is free, rainbows are always in the air, and there is peace in the middle east. I just read that licensing provision. Whomever wrote that was high. By the logic they've presented, they're breaking the GPL by offering a non-GPL license version of MySQL that will install and run on a Linux operating system. The Linux OS is GPL software, therefore if MySQL is able to talk to that software using the GPL licensed methods and syscalls that Linux provides, it is a derived work of Linux and must also fall under the GPL. Installations using GPL MySQL code may continue to do so, but any installations using the commercial license must cease using the software and uninstall it. They're all on crack. :-P -- Chris `The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale. It is. And, from my perspective, it completely destroys your credibility. What makes your opinion more credible than that of Eben Moglen? Or am I missing something here? -- Chris With the way things are starting to go in this country, if forced to choose between being caught with a van full of pirated DVDs or heroin you'd actually have to pause and think about it. -- Michael Bell, drunkenblog.com
Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd Help-About $KDE-app tab calls the GPL License Agreement, ie; a contract.
On 7/10/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:56:50AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: Maybe impractical, but so far I can't see why they should be non-free. Now you're claiming that an impractical license can be free? I think your notion of what is free is so patently absurd that I can't be bothered to argue with you--we require the freedom to modify and distribute, but license restrictions that make those freedoms impractical to exercise are fine! Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses are impractical and Marco agreed with you. You said nothing about the license contents. If you're wanting to take issue with Marco's agreement with your position that the click-wrap method of accepting a license is impractical, please keep in mind that the method by which a user agrees to a license has nothing to do with the contents of that license. I'm unclear how on the one hand you can say they are impractical (click-wrap licenses) and then call absurd someone's agreement with that contention. Can you please clarify this disconnect? -- Chris With the way things are starting to go in this country, if forced to choose between being caught with a van full of pirated DVDs or heroin you'd actually have to pause and think about it. -- Michael Bell, drunkenblog.com
Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd Help-About $KDE-app tab calls the GPL License Agreement, ie; a contract.
On 7/12/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote: Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses are impractical and Marco agreed with you. You said nothing about the license contents. Chris, a click-wrap license allowing redistribution would contain a clause requiring that distributors put recipients through a click-wrap as well. That *is* license contents; it's a specific and onerous restriction on redistribution. That would not only require that apt-get install display and confirm licenses, but also apt-get source, and would probably prohibit anonymous CVS and source tarballs on anonymous FTP entirely. If click-wrap is desired, then the copyright holder wants explicit (not implicit, by conduct) agreement, and click-wrap would be required by the license at every place the software is distributed. So what you're saying is not that the contents of the license are the problem, but that fact that the user is required to acknowledge that the license has been displayed to them is the burdensome requirement? Is that right? -- Chris With the way things are starting to go in this country, if forced to choose between being caught with a van full of pirated DVDs or heroin you'd actually have to pause and think about it. -- Michael Bell, drunkenblog.com
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On 7/12/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: If I were you I would be very, very cautious about inviting the SFLC to hang its first test case on my project. I speak as someone with no legal qualifications but with a certain amount of research under my belt, including an eventually successful (after repeated office actions) patent filing (whose economic rights I do not now own) that certain uses of software in Debian probably infringes. IANAL, TINLA, YMMV. So we're supposed to take the word of a self-professed collaborator with the current illegitimate patent regime, over the word of someone who works for an organization dedicated to fighting this threat to intellectual freedom? Why would we do that? Because the current illegitmate patent regime is the law. Failure to comply with the law can (and does) lead to negative consequences for the person not in compliance. -- Chris With the way things are starting to go in this country, if forced to choose between being caught with a van full of pirated DVDs or heroin you'd actually have to pause and think about it. -- Michael Bell, drunkenblog.com
Re: Bug#316487: debian-installer-manual: Missing copyright credit: Karsten M. Self for section C.4
It's pretty lame that in your crusade for user freedom, you seek to take away the last right the developer has -- being credited for his work. What a joke you have become. -- Chris With the way things are starting to go in this country, if forced to choose between being caught with a van full of pirated DVDs or heroin you'd actually have to pause and think about it. -- Michael Bell, drunkenblog.com
