Re: [cups-devel] CUPS License Change Coming
(Dropping cups-devel@, adding debian-printing@ and ftpmasters) Le mercredi, 8 novembre 2017, 22.53:51 h CET Ben Finney a écrit : > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes: > > Is Apple going with "pristine" Apache License 2.0 [1] without further > > exceptions? > > That's an important question. I don't think anyone on this forum can > answer it better than an official answer from Apple Corp. Who has asked > it of them? Apparently they are, see the commit [0] > CUPS is developed by Apple Inc. and distributed as open source software > under the Apache License, Version 2.0. Significant contributions to CUPS > must be licensed to Apple using the Apple Contributor Agreement: As I understand it, there are two alternative visions here: * either we consider libcups* and friends covered by the system library exception; but this has not traditionally been Debian's stance; and we still refuse to apply that exception to OpenSSL; * … or we don't, and that change effectively forbids linking GPL2-only software to dynamicall link against libcups* and friends. If the latter applies (and I'm afraid it will), how should we encode that in the packaging, add Breaks in the source package against all GPL2-only reverse dependencies, and wait+hope that they get fixed one day ? That seems only realistic in experimental. @ftpmasters: is the above aligned with your line of thought ? As another question for you; can I force CUPS to go through NEW, as the license change is radical ? Cheers, OdyX [0] https://github.com/apple/cups/commit/ e310189747c161ac6e737eedadf8f45d11bf2253 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [cups-devel] CUPS License Change Coming
Le mardi, 7 novembre 2017, 15.05:19 h CET Michael Sweet a écrit : > Apple is excited to announce that starting with CUPS 2.3 we will be > providing CUPS under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0. > > For more information about the Apache License, Version 2.0, please see the > Apache Software Foundation licenses page at: > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/ CUPS was so far licensed under what Debian nicknamed as "GPL-2.0 with AOSDL exception" [0] : > (…) In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Apple Inc. grants the > following special exception: (…) Is Apple going with "pristine" Apache License 2.0 [1] without further exceptions? This is going to make CUPS incompatible with GPL-2-only software [2,3]. My understanding it that it doesn't affect dynamic-linking situations (both software that CUPS needs, or software that need libcups*), aka not a concern for distributors, but are there other potential impacts of this license change that I'm missing ? Cheers, OdyX [0] https://sources.debian.net/src/cups/2.2.1-8/debian/copyright/#L50 [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 [3] https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
SEIKO EPSON license, suitable for non-free ?
Hi debian-legal,
To ease the installation of the various Epson drivers [0], I'd like to get
them uploaded to Debian (even non-free would be an improvement over their
download page). Some of the packages come with source, others not.
But these packages all come with the "SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION SOFTWARE LICENSE
AGREEMENT" (attached), which I wonder if it allows redistribution through
Debian's non-free.
What do you think ?
OdyX
[0] http://avasys.jp/eng/linux_driver/download/lsb/epson-inkjet/escp/
SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT! READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. The computer
software product, fontware, typefaces and/or data, including any
accompanying explanatory written materials (the "Software") should only
be installed or used by the Licensee ("you") on the condition you agree
with SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION ("EPSON") to the terms and conditions set
forth in this Agreement. By installing or using the Software, you are
representing to agree all the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement. You should read this Agreement carefully before installing or
using the Software. If you do not agree with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, you are not permitted to install or use the Software.
1. License. EPSON and its suppliers grant you a personal, nonexclusive,
royalty-free, non-sublicensable limited license to install and use the
Software on any single computer or computers that you intend to use
directly or via network. You may allow other users of the computers
connected to the network to use the Software, provided that you (a)
ensure that all such users agree and are bound by the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, (b) ensure that all such users use the
Software only in conjunction with the computers and in relation to the
network of which they form part, and (c) indemnify and keep whole EPSON
and its suppliers against all damages, losses, costs, expenses and
liabilities which EPSON or its suppliers may incur as a consequence of
such users failing to observe and perform the terms and conditions of
this Agreement. You may also make copies of the Software as necessary
for backup and archival purposes, provided that the copyright notice is
reproduced in its entirety on the backup copy. The term "Software" shall
include the software components, media, all copies made by you and any
upgrades, modified versions, updates, additions and copies of the
Software licensed to you by EPSON or its suppliers. EPSON and its
suppliers reserve all rights not granted herein.
2.Other Rights and Limitations. You agree not to modify, adapt or
translate the Software. You also agree not to attempt to reverse
engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the
source code of the Software. You may not share, rent, lease, encumber,
sublicense or lend the Software. You may, however, transfer all your
rights to use the Software to another person or legal entity provided
that you transfer this Agreement, the Software, including all copies,
updates and prior versions, to such person or entity, and that you
retain no copies, including copies stored on a computer. Some states or
jurisdictions, however, do not allow the restriction or limitation on
transfer of the Software, so the above limitations may not apply to you.
3.Ownership. Title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights
in and to the Software and any copies thereof shall remain with EPSON or
its suppliers. There is no transfer to you of any title to or ownership
of the Software and this License shall not be construed as a sale of any
rights in the Software. The Software is protected by Japanese Copyright
Law and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual
property laws and treaties. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, you may not copy the Software. You also agree not to remove
or alter any copyright and other proprietary notices on any copies of
the Software.
4.LGPL.The Software uses the open source software programs which
apply the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2 or later version
(“ LGPL”). Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, you may
make modification of the Software for your own use and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications according to the terms and
conditions of the LGPL.
5. Protection and Security. You agree to use your best efforts and take
all reasonable steps to safeguard the Software to ensure that no
unauthorized person has access to them and that no unauthorized copy,
publication, disclosure or distribution of any of the Software is made.
You acknowledge that the Software contains valuable, confidential
information and trade secrets, that unauthorized use and copying are
harmful to EPSON and its suppliers, and that you have a confidentiality
obligation as to such valuable information and trade secrets.
6. Limited Warranty. In case of t
Re: The Debian open logo with "Debian" is not compliant to the Debian policy (RC bugs #587482, #587664 and #587668)
Hi all, (Context: while hunting for an RC bug to fix, I fell on #587668 and then asked for advice on #debian-release, where a discussion was held. Here's my summary of the issue.) As the title of the bugreports mention, the issue is that the Debian Open Use Logo (DOUL) with "Debian" is not compliant to the DFSG. The consensus seems to be that it certainly fails #3 and #6, and (to some extent), #8. * The "DOUL without 'Debian'" is DFSG-free; [DOUL] * The "DOUL with 'Debian'" is not. [DOUL-with] gdm, gdm-themes and desktop-base all ship some images that incorporate both the swirl and the "Debian" part of the logo. The issue sounds to be that if the "Debian" part of said images were "derivatived" for the DOUL-with, they would fall under the DOUL-with license, hence non-DFSG-free (hence not suitable for main). Now how can those three RC bugs get solved? My understanding from reading the three bugreports and from the discussion on #d-release is that we have a limited set of options: a) remove the "Debian" word on all images, (This would make the situation clear but is not necessarily possible without damage for all affected images.) b) get the original author of all affected images confirm that the "Debian" word on all images was not derivated from the DOUL-with, c) create a "Debian" word from scratch and replace all occurences of it in all affected images, (Same as a); not necessarily possible without damage on all affected images.) d) get the DOUL-with license changed in time for Squeeze, e) have the Release Team tag this as squeeze-ignore (that's no proper fix though). @debian-legal: would the solutions b) or c) be enough to ensure that the final images would not fall under the DOUL-with license? (My opinion is "no", but while interesting, it doesn't actually matter.) Looking forward for more enlightening answers, cheers, OdyX -- Didier Raboud, proud Debian Maintainer (DM). CH-1020 Renens did...@raboud.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?
Hi dear MeeGo-dev,
(some CCs added for convenience and openness)
I am Didier 'OdyX' Raboud, a Debian Maintainer and I am part of the "pkg-meego"
group on Debian. Our (blurry) intent is to allow Debian users to benefit from
the software that comes out of the MeeGo project.
Following the Smeegol release and the "Trademark compliance, name usage, etc."
thread (and in particular Ibrahim's answer⁰), I want to clear up the path on
which we will walk before being too late.
Our work has somehow begun and is more-or-less documented on the Debian wiki¹.
Some ITP² bugs have already been filed and packaging is in progress on our git
repositories (which are linked from the wiki page¹). Debian packages of
libcontentaction, meegotouch-theme and libmeegotouch will very soon hit the
Debian "NEW" queue, then the archive. So there is a clear need of sorting that
"issue" right now.
Currently, we use the {M,m}-e-e-{G,g}-o sequence of letters in the following
places:
* in our team code (pkg-meego), which is:
- a unix group name (in fact two, there is also scm_pkg-meego) on the
alioth.debian.org machine
- a project name within the Alioth infrastructure:
https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-meego/
- part of our mailing list name:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listingo/pkg-meego-maintainers
* in our team name :
- on the above project page (Debian MeeGo Team)
- on the wiki team page (Debian MeeGo stack maintainers)
- in the "Maintainer:" field of the not-released-yet packages (in the
debian/control file): (Debian MeeGo packaging Team)
(There is some uncoherence here, it might need merging.)
* (of course, but mentioning for exhaustiveness) in the packages names :
- e.g. meegotouch-theme, libmeegotouch, …
In the future, when this work will (eventually) be led to its "end", we might
very well consider releasing meta-packages (as kde-standard, lxde-core, gnome-
desktop-environment, etc) that would be named as meego-handset-ux for example.
Another possibility would be to release live-CDs or installation CDs that would
either launch or allow installation of meego-based environment (as is currently
done for KDE-SC, Gnome, XFCE, …). Their naming is of course not sorted out yet,
but using something along the paths of debian-wheezy-amd64-meego-CD-1.iso would
match what we currently do with KDE or XFCE+LXDE.
[By the way, there is not (at least not currently) the intent/need/whatever to
reach a "compliance" level for the MeeGo software on Debian. Debian is
(intended
to be) universal and by such there is no reason (from our point of view) to
_not_ offer to Debian users the free software stuff that comes out of the MeeGo
project.]
So my questions are :
* which of the above uses is considered OK (or not) by MeeGo (or whoever is
entitled to draw a line)?
* how should we name ourselves?. In fact we _are_ the "Debian team that
handles the packaging for the Debian distribution of the software that comes
out of the MeeGo project but that's long, would a "Debian MeeGo maintainers"
team name be Okay ? Is the pkg-meego team code Okay ?
* if we are not granted the "right" (whatever that might mean) to use the
"MeeGo" trademark to refer to the "software that comes out of the MeeGo
project", what are we supposed to use instead? (Please don't make us use
things like "the name everyone knows but that I can't write").
* Other pieces of advice ?
Thanks in advance for constructive answers, cheers,
OdyX
[⁰] http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/meego-dev/2010-October/006547.html
[¹] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PkgMeeGo
[²] Intent to Package
--
Didier Raboud, proud Debian Maintainer (DM).
CH-1020 Renens
did...@raboud.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: > Josselin Mouette schrieb: >> Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt. > > Hmmm... Actually... As he didn't gave a definition of "good" or "evil" > one could argue, that everything is good... for someone. > > However, I would strongly advise to not package that thing for Debian > main; it smells like problems. We must not discriminate against fields of endeavor (so people wanting to do "evil" must be able to), but this license doesn't seem to restrict redistribution, thus making this "Good but no Evil" software suited for non- free, no ? Or did I misread your message ? OdyX -- 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/hoj69b$vn...@dough.gmane.org
