Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification
On 2 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I formally propose that SPI step in and take control of its intellectual > > property. > > I concur. Third for that. > > So far I can name two such instances in which non-free licenses are being > > called Open Source. The first is Apple's license > > The other real recent example may or may not have been directly endorsed > > by OSI---I don't know for certain. The bitkeeper license is NOT Open > > Source > > I spoke with Larry McVoy on the phone yesterday, it's very clear that he > is _not_ promoting the license as Open Source, and OSI is not accepting it > as such. > What a little more disturbing was seeing ESR asked in an interview about the "New Copyleft" license. He said it might be time to rethink the Open Source Definition to include such a beast. I wish I had the reference. Anyway, I think this kind of statement bodes very badly for the OpenSource trademark, if SPI doesn't assert its ownership of the mark. This is not to say I think ESR is evil. I have been very disturbed to see some of the comments on slashdot, and in articles, regarding this division over the Open Source tm. Frankly, the subtext of ESR's announcements always seem to indicate that he's really for free software, but sees gaining market share (and attracting commercial companies) is the only realistic way to gain the mind share of the public and demarginalize the issue. In a very real way he's correct - any time you want to take a radical position and make it more acceptable, you have to move the middle ground in that direction. Also, I agree with his analysis of the benefits of making the source available, even if its not free, because it does benefit the people who, for one reason or another, feel they must use that platform. So, in general, I see any move toward more liberal licensing of code as progress towards the overall goal of free software. That said, I also believe the purpose of the Open Source trademark should not so much be to help advertise products as to inform the consumer as to the status of the license. This is especially important in light of all the various licenses that have been proliferating lately. In this regard, I believe the branding body (whether OSI, or a committee of SPI) should play a role analagous to Consumer Reports, though it does allow the use of the "rating" in advertising. Perhaps we should consider "levels" of Open Source, rather than a simple binary switch. Then would could these levels to indicate where in the spectrum a license falls, so the developer wouldn't have to read the license looking for tricky legalese. Actually, "levels" might not be quite right either, as the classification might not be strictly hierarchical, but it would be a start. Lynn
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
> to adults, or only people with red hair, that is ok. Asking people to
> agree that they will use the software only in accord with the license
> is ok, provided the license is a free software license.
>
> If the license is a free software license, then it permits you to put
> the software on your own ftp site and allow anyone to copy it. So
> that is a thing you could "do about" the situation.
>
> You sent me only part of the page. The rest of the page may have some
> sort of problem. For instance, the license may not qualify as a free
> software license. Alternatively, if this text refers to a specific
> license, and if the software it purports to cover is GPL-covered, and
> if the specific license contradicts the GPL, that would be a violation
> of the GPL. I have, at present, insufficient evidence to know whether
> either of these is the case.
>
I'm including the full text below. What I find particularly odious is
not the exclusion of minors (though it is odious), but the contention (as
usual in purported EULAs) that Corel still retains title to the copy of
the software downloaded, whether it's under GPL or not. The problem is,
that if they retain ownership, they (or someone else later down the road)
may attempt to circumvent the GPL by claiming the downloaders never owned
a copy, and therefore the license does not apply to them. I, for one,
would like to see some kind of formal (and if necessary legal) opposition
to this pretense (for I do see it as a pretense and neither legal nor
enforceable - IANAL, YMMV) to clarify this problem for the future and any
opportunists who think they may have a loophole to exploit.
The difference between this "license" and the GPL or other free software
licenses, is that the latter is a copyright license, and the former is
not (or, rather, is a "license" for permitting what is fair use of one's
copy anyway).
Corel should segregate all non-free software in their distribution and
then limit the pretense to that software, leaving only the
warranty/liability disclaimers intact for the free part.
End User License Agreement
IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING
AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") BEFORE DOWNLOADING THE PRODUCT. BY CLICKING
"ACCEPT" BELOW:
1.YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR AND THAT YOU AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE LICENSE
BELOW. DOWNLOADING AND/OR USING THE PRODUCT WILL BE AN
IRREVOCABLE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
LICENSE.
2.YOU AGREE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDER FEES, TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER CHARGES THAT MAY
APPLY AS A RESULT OF YOUR DOWNLOAD OF THE PRODUCT;
3.IF YOU ARE ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF A COMPANY, OR OTHER LEGAL
ENTITY, YOU REPRESENT AND WARRANT TO COREL THAT YOU HAVE FULL
AUTHORITY TO BIND SUCH ENTITY.
ATTENTION:THIS IS A LICENSE, NOT A SALE. THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED UNDER
THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT WHICH DEFINES WHAT YOU (HEREAFTER REFERRED
TO AS "YOU" OR "YOUR") MAY DO WITH THE PRODUCT AND CONTAINS LIMITATIONS
ON WARRANTIES AND/OR REMEDIES.
COREL LINUX LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT: CAREFULLY READ THIS AGREEMENT BEFORE USING THIS PRODUCT.
INSTALLING OR OTHERWISE USING THIS PRODUCT INDICATES YOUR
ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS LICENSE AND AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY AND COMPLY WITH ITS TERMS.
A. LICENSE:
1. Corel LINUX is a modular operating system made up of individual
software components that were created by various individuals and entities
("Software Programs"). Many of the Software Programs included in Corel
LINUX are distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
License ("GPL") and other similar license agreements which permit You to
copy, modify and redistribute the Software Programs. Please review the
terms and conditions of the license agreement that accompanies each of the
Software Programs included in Corel LINUX. You can also visit
linux.corel.com/products/linux_os/licensing.htm for additional licensing
information.
2. In addition to the freely distributable Software Programs, some
versions of Corel LINUX may also include certain Software Programs, such
as Corel WordPerfect 8 for Linux and Bitstream fonts included with Corel
LINUX, that are distributed under the terms of the GPL or similar licenses
that permit modification and redistribution. Generally, each of these
Software Programs is distributed under the terms of a license agreement
that grants You a license to install each of the Software Programs on a
single computer for Your own individual use. Copying (other than for
archival purposes), redistribution, reverse engineering, decompiling
and/or modification of these Software Programs is prohibited. Any
violation by You of the applicable license terms shall immediately
terminate Your license to use the Software Program. In order to view the
complete terms and conditions which govern Your use of these
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Erich Forler wrote: > If you're referring to the following section, > > "All right, title and interest in the Software Programs, including source > code, documentation, appearance, structure and organization, are held by > Corel Corporation, Corel Corporation Limited, and others and are protected > by copyright and other laws." > > the "and others" covers everyone who already has title to the included > software. It > doesn't extend Corel's title over the existing software it simply puts title > over > the components that are created by Corel. Essentially, it enforces the > ownership of > the original creators. > You'll note I said "title to the copy", not "title to the copyright". I am referring to: ATTENTION:THIS IS A LICENSE, NOT A SALE. THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED UNDER THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT WHICH DEFINES WHAT YOU (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS "YOU" OR "YOUR") MAY DO WITH THE PRODUCT AND CONTAINS LIMITATIONS ON WARRANTIES AND/OR REMEDIES. You know, the typical EULA claptrap that attempts to circumvent the first sale doctrine and subsequent fair use. There's no reason to make this pretense with the free software portion of the distribution. The way I see it (and IANAL), the GPL (and other free software licenses) are copyright licenses that accompany copies of software. If I never receive actual ownership of the copy, it's not clear that I would receive the accompanying license, or that the license would require my receipt of it. In the case of the GPL, I don't think this would be a problem (since public distribution has occured even without transfer of ownership - I _think_). Nonetheless, I'd rather not anyone view this as a potential way to circumvent free licenses, if it is, in fact, not. I am not claiming this is Corel's intent. I am more worried about the precedent it creates. Consider the current industry desire to push software "rental" from the internet. Or consider me excessively paranoid. Lynn
Copyright Office Notice on Anti-Circumvention (fwd)
I thought this notice is important for free software developers (in particular) to be aware of. My hope is that this clause of the DMCA will be struck down by the courts as overreaching the powers of Congress, but we should be letting the library of congress know there are legitimate fair use issues with . I'm most concerned with the ability to read code (through decompiling or just disassembly) to understand the underlying ideas. This is currently considered fair use of code (see Sega vs. Accolade) in the US, to the dismay of many IP lawyers. Circumventing fair use via encryption and this clause of the DMCA is not a practice that should go without criticism. Lynn -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:11:23 -0800 From: John Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Copyright Office Notice on Anti-Circumvention I haven't seen this news posted here, apologies if it already has been: On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the Copyright Office published a Notice of Inquiry inviting public comment on whether "there are classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses if they are prohibited from circumventing such technological measures." The Librarian of Congress has authority to exempt such classes of works from the anti-circumvention prohibition in Section 1201(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which goes into effect on 10/28/2000. The full text of the Federal Register release and other related info is available at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html. Comments are due by February 10, 2000. John Muller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The ladder of law has no top and no bottom"
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Henning Makholm writes: > > Note that you won't be able to include any GPLed software in your > > distribution if you want to make restrictions about how and when > > other people or corporations are allowed to redistribute it. > > Where does the GPL say that? I can give you several examples of distributors > who have made this their regular practice. > Please do. Lynn
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Dec 13, Henning Makholm wrote: > > I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without > > getting something tangible (a "consideration") in return cannot be > > legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license > > to be revoked as soon as the author wants to. > > > > I might be wrong, though. Can one of the American law guys comment? > > This month's Linux Magazine has an article about this subject (and > related concepts). It is possible that the right of future access to > source code could be considered "consideration," since the software > would not have been used in the absence of that right. > Certainly people who were contributing modifications to an existing GPL'ed code base would be getting a tangible consideration for doing so. I'm not sure how this would apply to original authors who don't accept external patches - mostly because of the "tangibility" requirement. On the other hand, you might be able to quantify in monetary terms the time spent by others in bug-finding and reporting even without patches. > of such a ruling (because if the GPL is invalid, then NOBODY can use > GPLed code... it wouldn't revert to the public domain, which is the > only "benefit" that an overturned GPL might have to proprietary > software companies!). except the original authors, if they haven't accepted any patches significant enough to qualify for copyright protection. Lynn
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > We have an "owner" who authored the software and holds the copypright > > for something distributed under GPL, and a "copier" who has made a > > copy of it. > > Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the "author". Why > choose different terminology, here? > Because there is a definite distinction (at least in non-moral rights copyright regimes such as the US and UK) between the author and the copyright owner. In particular, the author can sell his copyright to some other person or legal entity. In fact, if (for some reason) the original author sells the copyright to a GPL'ed work (say because of a court judgement) the new owner might be inclined to revoke the license. Lynn
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On 16 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote: > > The license contained in the copy is just bits. Can bits make legal > promises in American law? They certainly can't over here. > > In effect, the license contained in the copy is a "recording" of a > statement the author made once in the past. Since that statement > is not itself legally binding, the recording of said statement > can't be, can it? > That depends on statutes and common law. I would be very interested in having references to either supporting what Thomas is saying (not because I doubt him, but because I'm interested in investigating the details). Lynn
DVD CCA - more bad news (fwd)
http://douglas.min.net/~drw/css-auth/legal-info/granted/granted.html preliminary injunction granted. Is anyone working on programs to decompress/install programs without forcing the installer to agree to a "click-wrap" EULA? Lynn
Re: DVD CCA - more bad news (fwd)
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Richard Makin wrote: > > Is anyone working on programs to decompress/install programs without > >forcing the installer to agree to a "click-wrap" EULA? > > > First of all, in many countries, including Norway, reverse engineering is > explicitly permitted by law _even_ if EULA states otherwise. Some software > vendors have realised this and add "...is prohibited unless explicidly > granted by law and only to the extent expressed in this law". So the case > would be clear in a Norwegian court. Yes, but there's other places (like where I live) where the situation isn't as crystal clear. > Secondly, Xing Player (as well as many other programs) can be installed > without clicking "OK", although often it requires ingerence in the > program/setup script itself. This isn't just about the DVD encryption algorithm. There are other things to be reverse engineered, and while I don't consider EULA's to be binding, it would be nice to be able to tell a court I didn't in any way agree to a click-wrap license. > Anyway - when I have already paid for the program, and I don't like the > license - will they give me my money back? > Thirdly, if the case is lost in the USA on the basis of this "EULA click" we > may consider setting up DeCSS servers in countries where laws are more > consistent. Since I live in the USA, I would like to find a way around the click wrap EULA even if the judiciary (in a fit of poor thinking) decides that clicking on a button to make something you've already paid for work is legally equivalent to going into a room and negotiating a contract with someone. Lynn
Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > Do I have really to relicense the whole even if the original code have had > nothing to do in the past with my Readline additions? One could ponder that > only _my_ part of the work is based on Readline. I will really appreciate > if someone could confirm/second Santiago's point here: am I not allowed to > just release _my_ modifications under the GPL, leaving the rest in the > public domain? Could someone please point to me the relevant part of GPL > that states that? The original work, sans readline support, will remain in the PD. You can distribute it by itself, as PD. The version with readline support is a derivative work of the readline library, and thus is no longer in the PD (the authors of readline have a copyright interest in it).Thus, that version must be released under the GPL. I don't know if you're laboring under the common misconception that a work (and all variants) must be uniformly licensed. You don't have to "relicense" anything here. Releasing a version under GPL has zero effect on other released versions (or even the same version distributed to someone else). There should be a FAQ for these things. Lynn
Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, David Johnson wrote: > Oh, but it does! I'm sorry that I can't quote the relevant law to you, > not being a lawyer or anything. But there have been court cases in the > past that have determined that APIs cannot be copyrighted. A footnote > containing a chapter or page reference is the prose equivalence to an > API. For a program, a reference to call a function elsewhere is > analogous to a footnote and the #include statement is > analogous to any entry in a bibliography. If you want someone to believe you when you say an API cannot be copyrighted, you should include a legal reference to support your claim. Secondly, the claim is not that the API is copyrighted, it's that the code calling it is derivative of the implementation of the API. There's a difference. You'd have to do some work to show me that in all cases a function call is equivalent to a footnote - footnotes you don't need to see to understand the text, a non-standard API I need to know at least the documentation for the library implementation (which probably describes, but not defines, the API). In the case of a standard, the function call gets its meaning from the standard's definition rather than that of any particular implementation, so the calling code's meaning is independent of that library implementation. Lynn
Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote: > Chris Lawrence wrote: > > > If you have something to say, say it to the lists. > > Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had made > rather than continue to make the generalized statements "It just isn't so" or > "The GPL requires this" w/out bothering to indicate where in the GPL this is > required. But, alas, I have failed :-(. While I could respect your different > reading of the GPL, I cannot see how your reading of the GPL allows linking > with > XFree code but not Qt code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except > by > claiming that the XFree code can be licensed under the GPL. When I went > through > a thorough exercise of showing why this in fact can't be done (my post bearing > Message-ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), nobody has responded, perhaps b/c > you agree that I am right. > Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any derivatives) under the GPL or practically any license (as long as it preserves the copyright notice) under the sublicensing permission. In particular, the XFree86 copyright notice's permissions only apply to (a) copies you get without another license, and (b) to the original work (not derivatives). The fact that it permits copying of their code is a waiving (mostly) their copyright protections. It doesn't invalidate any other agreements you may entered regarding the code. It also doesn't invalidate different licenses on derivative works, particularly those with sufficient copyrightable content to be protectable. Furthermore, it is perfectly legal to distribute the exact same expression under multiple copyright licenses. I don't have to "re-license" all currently existing versions of the code to comply with the GPL on a version that includes or is derivative of some GPL'ed work. I only have to distribute that version under the GPL. You should really either (a) consult a lawyer, (b) do some legal reading on IP/contract law/torts, and/or (c) take some law classes. If you insist on continuing to debate what many of us consider obvious (e.g. that X licensed code may be redistributed under a proprietary license) then it would be best for you to post (in a relatively short way) your basic assumptions that are leading you to your conclusions. My wager is that we'll disagree with one of your assumptions, so maybe we'll get somewhere more fruitful (no guarantees though). Lynn
Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Lynn Winebarger wrote:
>
> >Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to
> > listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any
>
> > derivatives) under the GPL or practically any license (as long as it
> > preserves the copyright notice) under the sublicensing permission.
>
> The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license in any
> copies you
> redistribute. I suppose you might argue there is no reason for that and we
> can
> safely ignore that rather critical condition. In that case it is you that
> appears
> not to listen.
>
No. I'm saying the X license allows other interests to be attached in
the form of licenses, and the X copyright notice only notifies you of
their (the copyright holder's) permissions.
> Wrong, it says you need to include the notice with any "substantial portion"
> of the
> code. Notice that this license applies to each *file*, not the entire XFree
> build
> tree. So including any substantial portion of any file (however much that
> is),
> requires you to include their license. And since Debian redistributes
> basically all
> of their files untouched, there is no question that Debian has to include the
> XFree
> copyright notice and the XFree license (which is referred to as the
> "permission
> notice").
>
The notice has to go in. However, the original authors cannot give
permissions for modifications of the code - they don't have the sole
copyright interest in derivative works. The copyright notice also does
not claim it is the sole license for the code.
For example, author A distributes his work W to person B. Now B gives
a copy to C with a license that has additional restrictions X, Y, and Z.
Now, the X license gives the permission of A for person C to exercise the
rights of the copyright monopoly. That, however, does not invalidate the
additional restrictions B has placed on the license for the copy. Only B
can waive those restrictions. I don't see anywhere in the X license
claiming that it contains the sole terms of the license to C. Quite the
opposite in fact ("... including without restriction the rights to ...
sublicense ...").
While I don't know whether a court would enforce such restrictions on
the unmodified code without the intervention of the author, the X license
certainly allows such additional restrictions.
Here's an example of how such a sublicense might appear:
You may not copy, modify, or distribute this software.
XYZ Software Co.
Copyright (C) 1996 X Consortium
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:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE
FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF
CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall not
be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other
dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the X
Consortium.
X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.
-
There is no contradiction. X grants you their permission, XYZ denies
you theirs, as is their right under the X license. This sublicense won't
apply to other copies you get (unless they carry the same sublicense, of
course).
> > It doesn't invalidate any
> > other agreements you may entered regarding the code. It also doesn't
> > invalidate different licenses on derivative works, particularly those with
> > sufficient copyrightable content to be protectable.
>
> No it does not, and I have never claimed it does.You can license additions to
> XFree
> code under your own license, and when someone distributes the combined work
> they have
> to comply with the XFree license and your license. The XFree code, however,
> at all
> times remains under the XFree license.
Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote: > Lynn Winebarger wrote: > > I don't see how they are enforceable. The copyright holder, A, has said C > can do certain > things, B can't change what A has permitted C to do. But in the event this > is not clear > enough, XFree code specifically says you can sublicense XFree code, but only > if you > include the XFree license. If that were to mean that B can change the > license however B > wants, what would be the point of forcing B to include the XFree license? > This important > ir not critical "condition" -- in fact about the only condition -- to > sublicensing is not > going to be read to mean nothing by any fair-minded reader, but your reading > precisely > makes it mean nothing. > They may be enforceable to the extent that A has told B they are enforceable (by allowing sublicensing without limitation). Unless you have case law references, it's fairly useless to debate whether or not it's enforceable. There are valid arguments both ways (when it comes to unmodified works). > Right, but the "right" to "sublicense" is subject to the obligation to > include the X > Copyright and the X license in the copy B distributes. Again, if the License > means > nothing, and in fact C cannot "deal in the Software without limitation" (as > the X license > provides), what is the point in including the license in the copy that's > distributed? > Please explain that to me. The purpose is to indicate that party A gives you permission, not to say that every party with an interest has given you permission. You'll notice the statement starts with "Permission is hereby granted" not "A license is hereby granted". > I don't see where it does. The fact that X license does not explicitly > prohibit changing > the license does not imply a right to change it. The fact that the X license > affirmatively requires copies of the code to include the license is more than > enough. > It explicitly allows sublicensing. If you can't understand this point, then there's not much point in continuing. > >Here's an example of how such a sublicense might appear: > > > >You may not copy, modify, or distribute this software. > > XYZ Software Co. > > Copyright (C) 1996 X Consortium > > > > 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: > > > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in > > all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR > > IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR > > PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE > > FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF > > CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, > > ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR > > OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > > > > Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall not > > be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other > > dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the X > > Consortium. > > > > X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc. > > - > > > >There is no contradiction. X grants you their permission, XYZ denies > > you theirs, as is their right under the X license. > > I don't agree. Where does the X license specifically grant the right to > alter the > license? It doesn't --you "imply" this rather powerful right to sublicense > under any > terms you want from the mere absence of an explicit prohibition against doing > that, all > the time ignoring the purpose of the requirement that the sublicensor include > the original You must have missed it: 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
Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > Scripsit Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > There's a difference. You'd have to do some work to show me that in all > > cases a function call is equivalent to a footnote - footnotes you don't need > > to see to understand the text, a non-standard API I need to know at least > > the documentation for the library implementation (which probably describes, > > but not defines, the API). > > Uh? Where does copyright law talk about meaning and understanding? If I write > a book about (say) The Rolling Stones or Microsoft Windows one can't really > understand the text without accessing (or having had access to) their music > respectively software, but that does not give them any copyrights to my book! > Well, let's look at the case of fiction. If you use a character from a copyrighted text, your work may be derivative of that. Why? Because you're relying on the work of the author of the first text to provide the meaning/context for this character in your book. You're not just using the name as a reference. The question is not whether copyright law explicitly says " will constitute being derivative", the question is what will a judge/jury decide after seeing the two texts. Yes, I know software isn't fiction. But fiction does set the stage for an argument based on meaning and context. In nonfiction, generally a reference is given not to provide meaning to a statement, but to provide extra detail concerning a statement. With software, the reference is the statement, and is meaningless without knowing the function's code or documentation. And no, I don't think you need access to the Rolling Stones music or MS Windows in order to read and understand a book about them (this may depend on the quality of the text). > So portable code is unaffected by any implementation's copyrights but > non-portable code is affected? This would be quite interesting (and absurd). Depends on what you mean by portable and non-portable. Using readline, for example, doesn't make your code non-portable, though it does make it derivative of the readline library. While it may be absurd from a technical viewpoint, I don't believe it is so if you're looking at the code solely as a form of expression (as the copyright has 0 to do with any functionality it may have). There may, of course, be restrictions on how an OS vendor may apply any copyright interest they may have in application from antitrust law. > An example that you might be more familiar with is the WWW. Think of what it > would mean if linking to a webpage would give the (intellectual) owner of that > page copyrights over that page containing the link. And of course by extension > to any page linking to that page, etc. Well I'm pretty sure it would mean I > have copyrights over the entire WWW (and so would you). Yet it remains even > more true than for function calls that one cannot determine the meaning of a > weblink without following it. Nonsense. A link is simply a reference - there is no need to look at it for the referring page to be completely meaningful. Lynn
Re: license questions.
On Monday 07 October 2002 13:37, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Auke Jilderda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > - First, the boundaries of the GPL are unclear. Exactly what does the > > term "derived work" mean, does the license propagate across static > > linking, dynamic linking, IPC, or even socket communication? This > > unclarity is a risk for companies and, consequently, they take a > > cautious approach, staying on the safe side by not linking their > > proprietary software (that contains their business value) to GPL > > software. In other words, the unclarity in the GPL license causes > > that software to be used a bit less than had it been clear about its > > boundaries. > > "Derived work" is a well-established term in copyright law. The > reason the GPL doesn't give a local definition is because it reaches > exactly as far as the normal meaning of a derived work. The > boundaries of what is a derived work are *exactly* the same, > therefore, as for any other copyright program. It's well-established, but that doesn't mean it's well-defined. The edges are defined only by litigation, and sometimes redefined by litigation. Hence the boundaries of the GPL are unclear (and you subsequently noted a case (patches) where that ambiguity exists). Lynn
Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 11:02, Russell Nelson wrote: > And yet, you're doing that right now. One cannot rely on the language > of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an > elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and > may decide anything they wish. (Assuming of course that you're > correct about your ability to be arbitrary, which I contend you are > not). Why do the senior developers on debian-legal constitute an elite cabal who are completely unaccountable and the OSI board not? Or, if the OSI board does [constitute ...], why is it preferable to the folks in debian-legal? Of course, you also have to identify to whom they accountable. I suspect debian-legal would prove accountable to the debian developers is they really became capricious. How would OSI be accountable to those developers? Lynn
Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:47, Russell Nelson wrote: > Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or > don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you > give up on some things in order to get something else you want more. Yes! Now you have to supply what "something else you want more" is for the Debian developers. You made clear in the first email what the OSI would perceive as a benefit. Now you have to come up with a reason Debian developers will go for. The 2 groups have different reasons for being, after all. Otherwise, we're in for more wheel spinning. Lynn
Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:58, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Some countries, particularly some in Europe, have a concept of "moral > > rights" that attach to creative works. I admit I am not too familiar > > with these, but they are not the same thing as copyright and have > > little in common with copyright. > > Over here they do. The right to be identified as the work's author, > etc., and the monpoly on copymaking, are two facets of the very same > legal concept, at least in Danish law and to the best of my knowledge > in EU law in general. We call this concept "ophavsret", which could be > literally translated to "authorship right" - but the only English word > that would be generally recognised as denoting the same concept is > "copyright". I could be wrong, but can't you distinguish the moral rights from the copyrights by which ones you can trade? I thought there was no legally binding way for an author in Europe to contract away or sell their moral rights, but they could contract away or sell outright the exclusive right to make and distribute copies (still subject to the moral rights). Isn't that the distinction between a property right and a human/natural/moral right? Of course it also means the property right is weaker in Europe (and apparently Canada) than in the US, for both the ownership of the actual thing that is the embodiment of the expression and the copyright, and thus less economically valuable. Lynn
Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality
On Friday 31 January 2003 22:13, Paul Hampson wrote: > To me a right (as compared to a privelege) is something you can do, > and no-one can take that away from you. This would make a persons's set of rights empty. Lynn
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: If one does not see the difference between program and documentation, it is very hard to explain why they do not need the same kind of freedoms. If one cannot coherently and usefully *describe* the difference between programs and documentation, it is difficult for other people to see it. I continue to suspect that people are indulging an Aristotelian categorization fetish solely as a means to an end, that end being to compel the Debian Project to ship their favorite w4r3z in main, heedless of the negative consequences to the freedoms that our users currently enjoy. Meanwhile, others fetishize the notion that the denotation of words should be a Turing-recognizable set (along with an algorithm to demonstrate it). After all, what utility would this distinction serve beyond providing one a means of routing around the DFSG's inconvenient restrictions? This is circular. You are only routing around DFSG's inconvenient restrictions if those restrictions apply (by virtue of being software). It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved? Lynn
Re: APSL 2.0
Adam Warner wrote: What was a substantial freedom as part of GNU philosophy--"the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist"--is now only useful to hermits and leeches. Anyone contributing by providing an electronic service would no longer have any expectation of being able to keep modifications private. Of course, this all depends on what the arguer believes "private" means. You don't need to attribute nefarious motives to rms - he (and others) may simply disagree with you about when and how an activity/use stops being private. As for "hermits and leeches", why are casting aspersions? What do you mean by "contributing by providing ..." if the modifications are not released? Why isn't that being a leech? There are a lot of programs that can do interesting things without having anything to do with a network. Lynn
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
Nathanael Nerode wrote: Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved? One good definition of software is "the part of a computer that's not hardware". Another is "Information in a format designed to be read by a machine". It's hardly artificial to use these definitions and say that everything Debian distributes, except the physical CDs, is software. Oh, but it is artificial. The common usage of software refers only to programs. While it is true that every program can be viewed as an interpreter and its input as a program in the language defined by that interpreter (e.g. every file is a valid program in the "more" language), and that it is useful to think that way when designing a program, it is not true that it's useful or honest to use the term "software" like that in other contexts. If you want all electronic data in Debian to be free, then you should slap the title "Debian Free Electronic Data Guidelines" on the DFSG instead of resorting to a non-standard definition. If this usage of "software" was not artificial, or if there was no discernible (by the human eye) difference between documentation and software, then you wouldn't have these complaints cropping up. Anyway, nobody's trying to force DFSG restrictions where they are 'unnecessary'. Apparently some people do think they are unnecessary, or there wouldn't be (have been) a flap over the GFDL. The point has already been made that the DFSG requirements *are* just as necessary for documentation as they are for programs. (The same motivations apply.) Then the intellectually honest approach is to say the guidelines are for both software and documentation, not to say the set of software contains the set of documentation. I can only assume that it was easier for the people on debian-legal (at least) to stretch the definition of software to cover everything they wanted to be free than to get a vote to officially change the guidelines to reflect the expansion. It's fine with me if Debian has its own independent notions of freedom for documentation and/or all electronic data, BTW. Lynn
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 07:01 US/Eastern, Lynn Winebarger wrote: Then the intellectually honest approach is to say the guidelines are for both software and documentation, not to say the set of software contains the set of documentation. I'd like to know more about this "intellectual honesty" that compels the word "software" to include documentation when used in the Social Contract, but not when used a little further down the page[0] in the guidelines. Nowhere did I suggest that Debian must or even should distribute documentation! Indeed it would seem Debian in violation of the 100% criteria if software is interpreted in the normal manner. It's interesting that the preamble refers to definitions of "free software" and then goes on to give the DFSG to define "free" in relationship to "software", rather than both. Lynn Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below [0] http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html
Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
MJ Ray wrote: Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not saying we have to do that. I'm only saying we have to decide whether or not the rules for declaring documentation to be free should be the same as the rules for declaring computer programs to be free [...] Please note that they are not called the "Debian Free Computer Program Guidelines". And yet whoever wrote them seemed to believe "software" refers to programs. Let's see how many times "program" is referred to as thing being freely licensed: --- The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) 1. Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in ^^^ source code as well as compiled form. 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. 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The ^^^ license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a ^^^ specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from ^^^ being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. 7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program ^^^ ^^^ is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's ^^^^^^ being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and ^^^ used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should ^^^ have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free ^^ [ implicitly, the thing being specified is part of this category] software. 10. Example Licenses The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that we consider "free". -- I count 12 places (11 if you exclude the implicit one) where the author(s) of the DFSG seems to regard "software" to be interchangeable with "software". The purpose of declaring "software" to be all-encompassing is to support this false syllogism: Debian distributes only free software. Debian [desires to/does in fact] distribute free documentation. Therefore, free documentation must be free software. Lynn
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
Andrew Suffield wrote: We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear, stick their oar in, and cease to send mail when somebody points out why their argument is flawed (in every discussion, not just licensing ones). In all the FDL debates, there has not once been a solid argument that it is actually acceptable, which was not immediately rebutted. If anybody thinks otherwise, they are invited to present their argument *and then defend it in the face of skilled opposition*. There are two ways of viewing debate: one is that debate is a means of persuading others that your point is the correct one, the other is that debate is a means of deriving truth (or at least correctness). Thus it's not "lunatic" to offer what seems to be a plausible argument and then not continue to argue for it when a convincing refutation is offered. Lynn PS. Yes, I know the two views of debate are not orthogonal.
Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
Speaking of GPL v3, does anyone know the status of it? My understanding is that it's being worked on. One of the specific things I'm wondering about is GPL'ed software in embedded devices. While manufacturers of such devices currently have to provide source for any GPL'ed code embedded in their device, this doesn't mean that the software the device actually runs is practically modifiable. ie, what I'm interested in is a requirement that, along with the source, there is a practical way to actually change the software the device runs (such as any ROMs containing the GPL'ed software being at least replaceable by user-programmed ROMs without resort to soldering). I think this issue is going to become more important as more embedded devices contain GPL'ed software (such as tivo). Am I alone in this desire? Lynn
Re: ITP: vice and vice-roms
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:13:44PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:36:05PM -0600, David Starner wrote: > > > Moving to Debian-Legal... > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:11:49PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote: > > > > I've been having a conversation with the > > > > upstream authors of VICE, and they believe that the rights to those > > > > firmware ROMs have been released. > > > > > > Released? By whom? And how? Copyright law is usually very explict - > > > > By Commodore, presumably when the company ceased to exist. > > Didn't they sell the rights to them, or transfer them to some > debtor? I would check with whoever currently owns the Amiga IP. Or someone remaining in the Amiga community. The Commodore bankruptcy saga was followed with great interest. Lynn
Ocaml status?
What's the status of Ocaml? I noticed parts of it were under GPL and other parts not. Can I write software in Ocaml without requiring users get non-free software to compile it? Lynn
RE: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, SSchott wrote: > > This is very general. Copyright law can preempt licensing agreements-- for > example licensing provisions prohibiting decompiliation and reverse > engineering have been found to be in violation of the "fair use" provision > of the Copyright Act. (Sega v. Accolade holds this I'm pretty sure... maybe > Vault v. Quaid too) Sega v. Accolade doesn't address licensing agreements, and the kinds of licensing agreements you're talking about (EULA's) are fundamentally different than copyright licenses like the GPL. > The point being that if locate_outer is an original piece of work, it can be > distributed on any terms. It does not matter that it cannot be run without > locate_inner. If it is original, the locate_inner copyright holder has no > right in it, because it's not a derivative work. How a program could be both Now you've just asserted the conclusion. Originality is actually a criteria for _being_ a derivative work - otherwise it's considered not much different than a copy of the original (this is my non-lawyerly understanding of the situation). Lynn
Re: Ocaml status?
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, David Starner wrote: > The authors position, as explained by them in a long flamewar on > gnu.misc.discuss, was that they didn't want anyone ripping off > their code to improve stuff like Java and other non functional > programming languages, which is why they were going to stay non-free. > Apparently, they were convinced that Open Source or DFSG-free > was the way to go, so they picked the most restrictive license > they could find to keep people from improving "inferior" > technologies. (Sorry if that was a little opinionated - but > the facts should be accurate.) > This is what was confusing me (I saw some posts in either that flamewar or a related one). What I recalled was them wanting you to redistribute modifications separately and keep the original intact (I believe there was a motivation of keeping grant money flowing to them as an explanation of why they didn't want their code to be of direct help to other language implementations mentioned - but I can't remember, at this point, whether that was a defense offered by one of the authors or an attack by someone else). Anyway, I just wanted to know if I could write free software in that language or if I should avoid it for lack of a free compiler/interpreter. Looks like the answer is, I can. Thanks, Lynn
Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote: > I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought > the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people > only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for them > (or so I thought). If you want your work used in a different manner > then just say so. After all, it's your work. Of all the people in the > world, you should have the largest say regarding how your work is used. > Presumably authors who choose to distribute their works under the GPL find it represents their wishes. The GPL does not restrict the author's use of his own writing (or rather, the copyright holder's use of it, which may not be the same entity). > Judged by Stallman's own actions, his GPL cannot possibly be designed to > protect the wishes of the author. So what does the GPL stand for? My > guess is that it is designed to guarantee that authors are forced to use > their work in a specific manner. Even if the GPL proper isn't designed > for this, it seems clear from his statements, that he would be very > happy if all authors were forced to subscribe to his philosophy. > Actually, currently all users/readers are forced to subscribe to copyright law, not vice versa. Abolishing copyright law wouldn't force the authors into anything, other than returning to a more natural state of affairs (at least in the US). It's not like Stallman is in favor of forcing them to publish their writings. Lynn
Re: linux gpl question
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't > > the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or > > has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. > > However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes > the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, > because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's > what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to > refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all. Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL. It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or pay for violating the license (and that would take a lawsuit brought by the copyright holders). He still has some rights to his derivative work, they aren't completely held by the original authors, so it would be a mistake to treat the derivative work as GPL'ed and copy it before the court forced license compliance (assuming it chose to). Lynn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:45, David Starner wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > > Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL. > > It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license > > and/or > > That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a > court to actually force him to comply with law. In either case, he is > violating the law. In one case the police will probably come after him (assuming they figure out who it was). Here the copyright holders have to come after him. There's a substantial difference. > > He still has some rights to his derivative work, they > > aren't completely held by the original authors, so it would be a mistake > > to treat the derivative work as GPL'ed and copy it before the court forced > > license compliance > > Not much of a mistake; unless he made clear that it wasn't GPLed, you > could reasonably claim that you made the assumption that he was acting > legally. Most judges aren't amused with cases where the plaintiff was > acting illegally and not in good faith. Do you really want to be in the position of having to make such a claim? > > (assuming it chose to). > > A judge that doesn't enforce the clear law - and there would be no legal Actually, I wasn't referring to chosing to enforce the law, but determining the penalty. They might make them distribute the patched version under GPL, or they might make them pay monetary damages and order existent copies destroyed. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the full range of a judge's discretion. However, the latter is the usual way to deal with copyright infringement (at least it's in statute itself). They might do something else. Lynn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)
On Sunday 21 July 2002 22:59, Jeff Licquia wrote: > On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:40, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > I think that a sysadmin that put > > a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by > > his users, *distributes* a changed LaTeX. You think he does not; the > > problem with your theory is that it undermines both the intentions of > > LPPL AND GPL. > > The problem with this is that the GPL disagrees: > > > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > > running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program > > is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the > > Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). > > It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction > between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I > think we've shown that this isn't the case, since a sysadmin does not > need to give source to every person with a login on his box, but does if > he exports the program via AFS. It might be instructive to think about Bison here. Anyone who uses bison gets a substantial chunk of Bison's code. Is that distribution (when the user is not the same as or part of the owner of the system)? Yes, I know the doesn't have to be GPL'ed, that's not the question. The only question is whether a copyrighted work (part of the bison executable that happens to be a large chunk of text) is distributed when that new work is made. Given the macro-expansion nature of tex, the same consideration might apply to the latex files. Then again, it might just correspond to the case if bison's output were immediately compiled without ever being written to disk. Lynn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
