Providing source for .iso files downloaded using bittorrent

2011-04-24 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi everyone,

 the request to stop redistributing Debian in Germany sparked an
 interesting conversation in identi.ca:

 http://identi.ca/conversation/69498913

 In that conversation Bradley Kuhn said:

bkuhn @vinzv, Please note: *technically speaking*, !Debian
project itself violates !GPlv2 w/ #torrent distribution too!
All who use it infringe ©.

 Richard Fontana does not agree:

fontana @bkuhn I think to some degree you are engaging in
#FUD on the # bittorrent !GPL issue

 Asking Bradley for some clarification he said:

bkuhn @mem, problem is question of informing #torrent users
when source/binary torrents are separate. See !GPLv3 §6(e) 
various supporting docs.

 The best thing I was able to find to provide some light into the
 issue was:

mem @bkuhn ah, here:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/bittorrent-dd2.pdf/view #torrent #gpl

 Now, back to the Debian case, Bradley seems to think that
 providing a method to download the source (e.g. apt-get source)
 is not enough.  If I understand it correctly, he's saying we
 must do something extra to comply with GPLv2§3: a) provide the
 source *in* the .iso; b) provide a written offer and all that;
 or c) show that we have a written offer from upstream.  a) is
 not going to happen, we don't have c) in the general case so b)
 it is (from his point of view).

 My interpretation of the whole thing is that in order to comply
 with the terms of the GPLv2, we should put yet another file,
 README.GPLv2, in the .iso explaining how to obtain the sources
 and accompany that with the offer to provide source for three
 years, etc, etc, etc per GPLv2§3(b).

 I have to say that I'm still not 100% clear on how the violation
 is happening, but this was obviously a real concern during the
 drafting of the GPLv3, since the new version does contain
 clauses meant to deal with this.  If I'm not mistaken our very
 own MRJ raised the issue during that process.

 My own concern is that when using Bittorrent, the people
 downloading the .iso start distributing the software *before*
 they had a chance to read the license.  By redistributing you
 are already excersicing your rights under the GPLv2, which means
 you have accepted all the terms and conditions.

 What do you think?

 Marcelo


-- 
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/20110424231141.GA22677@esk



Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

2003-08-22 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
  Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the
  questions below.  If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on
  this message, please GPG-sign your reply.

 GPG key not at hand, sorry.

  === CUT HERE ===
  
  Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
  
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion.  Mark only one.
  
[   ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
   by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible
   with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.  Works under this
   license would require significant additional permission
   statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this
   license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for
   inclusion in the Debian OS.
  
[   ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
   by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible
   with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.  In general, works
   under this license would require no additional permission
   statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this
   license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for
   inclusion in the Debian OS.
  
[ X ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
   by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible
   with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain
   restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the
   copyright holder with respect to a given work.  Works under
   this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case
   basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered
   Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS.
  
[   ]  None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
  
  Part 2. Status of Respondent
  
Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true.
  
[ X ]  I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
   Constitution as of the date on this survey.
  
  === CUT HERE ===

 I don't regard Software and Documentation as comparable in the general
 case and I think the Debian Project should be open to the idea that
 Free Software in general and the Project and its Users in particular
 benefits from having the possibility to apply certain restrictions to
 documentation.  Even so, these restrictions should not be accepted
 because of the specific documentation they apply to, but defined by
 previous discussion.

 Marcelo



YAST License, is redistribution permitted?

2002-11-12 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi guys,

 please keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc:

 I'm seeking the opinion of -legal regarding an issue I've been
 discussing on another mailing list.  It pertains the YAST license as
 found in:

  ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/8.1/COPYRIGHT.yast

 To make this clear from the start: I do not intent to package a program
 under this license.  I'm interested in this issue merely as a) Debian
 Developer trying to gain some insight into a particular aspect of
 copyright/contractual law; b) Application Manager who presents
 copyright-related questions to new maintainers.  If someone considers
 this discussion off-topic for this list, I apologize beforehand, *I*
 don't think that's the case.

 From the English translation of license (original is in German):

3. Dissemination
   It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which
   have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without
   the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG or SuSE Linux.
   Distribution of the YaST 2 programme, its sources, whether
   amended or unamended in full or in part thereof, and the works
   derived thereof for a charge require the prior written consent of
   SuSE Linux AG.

   All programmes derived from YaST 2, and all works derived thereof
   as a whole or parts thereof may only be disseminated with the
   amended sources and this licence in accordance with 2b).  Making
   YaST 2 or works derived thereof available free of charge together
   with SuSE Linux on FTP Servers and mailboxes is permitted if the
   licences on the software are observed.

 The point of contention is whether or not redistribution of SuSE Linux
 CDs is permitted by this license.  My reading of the above is as
 follows: this bit stablishes two modes of redistribution, for charge
 and free of charge.  If you want to redistribute the program for
 charge, you have to get permission from SuSE Linux.  If you want to
 redistribute the software free of charge, you have two options: FTP
 servers or mailboxes.  Any other option is forbidden.  Ergo, you
 can't redistribute copies of the SuSE Linux demo CDs (the ones with
 mostly free stuff -- modulo things like Acrobat Reader and its kind).

 Does this interpretation sound right to you?

 [ the mailboxes thing is something that isn't clear to me either.
   The original in German says Mailboxen IIRC, which according to the
   dictionary sitting near my desk is not a German word.  They _might_
   mean AOL-style distribution. ]

 During the discussion, another argument _for_ the redistribution of CDs
 has surfaced.  The other partner in this argument holds that in
 contractual law there's a principle called Contrario Senso (rough
 translation from Latin: opposed sense, contrary sense) which states
 that if an action is explicitly forbidden by a contract, the opposite
 action is implicitly permitted.  Even if this was to hold true for
 software licenses, I still think it's irrelevant for this case, but my
 question is precisely that: does such a principle hold true for
 software licenses?  How do you stablish what the opposite action is?
 Do you know of _any_ cases (relevant to software licensing) where such
 a principle has been applied?

 Thanks for your time,

 Marcelo



Derivative works marked as such

2002-03-31 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi,

 In the neverending saga of copyright reading for the purposes of the
 new maintainer process I found this in c2man:

 | This version of c2man is copyright, but may be freely redistributed
 | and modified so long as:
 | 
 | 1. The names of all contributing authors remain on the documentation,
 | 2. All derivative works are clearly documented as such,
 | 3. All derivative works remain freely redistributable under the same
 |conditions.

 what has to be done to meet point 2?  Is this:

 | This is Debian GNU/Linux's prepackaged version of Graham Stoney's
 | mechanized man page generator.

 at the start of README.Debian enough?  IMO, yes, but I'd like to have a
 second opinion.

 Thanks,

-- 
Marcelo | There's very good eating on one of these, you know.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Eyeing the tortoise for tea
|(Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Old subject: Patents and hardware implementations

2001-12-14 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi people,

 I'm rehashing an old subject mostly because I'd like to save Branden
 trouble in the near future (how kind of me... nah).

 Back in June 2000, James Treacy asked about the SGI Free Software
 License B.  Go look at the archives if you are interested in the whole
 discussion.  One of the points in that license is that SGI does not
 grant permission to implement patented methods or designs in hardware.
 In other words, if the software contains an implementation of a
 patented device, you are free to use, copy and modify the software as
 *software*, but you are not allowed to use it as a starting point for a
 hardware implementation of the device.  The license is worded a little
 differently, but i think I'm not deviating from the intention.

 It has happened that certain hardware company has granted permission to
 use its patents for a software implementation of a feature that's now
 implemented on a large part of their product line.  The permission they
 granted is software-only.  You cannot use the software implementation
 as a starting point for a hardware one.  Moreover, if you are making a
 hardware device that implements the feature, you have to obtain
 permission from this company.  This particular software is eventually
 going to become part of XFree86.  XFree86 project is not going to have
 *any* problem with it because the terms and conditions are compatible
 with their preferred license.

 My personal opinion is that this is ok.  This does not conflict with
 the DFSG because this is not software we are talking about and until
 now I haven't read a convincing argument that is does indeed relate to
 the fields of endevour clause (DFSG 6).  Starting from a very naïve
 position, yes, this is saying you cannot use this for X, but the
 particular case in question makes it hard to come up with a realistic
 example.  At the time of the original discussion, -legal seemed to
 agree that this is ok (IOW, noone actually said those terms make the
 license non-free).

 To add another twist in the maze, I did upload a package licensed under
 the Free Software B license.  James Troup said to me on IRC that he'd
 think about the license and ask here in case he had any doubts (this
 is, to the best of my recollection, what James said, I apologize
 beforehand if I'm putting words in his mouth).  He never asked, but
 neither got the package installed on the archive.  After some period of
 silence, being the irrational whiner that I am, I just got tired of the
 whole thing and removed the package from the incoming queue, so I can't
 say for sure what his position regarding the issue is.

 So there, let it be archived this time.

-- 
Marcelo | Item 41: Differentiate between inheritance and templates
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Scott Meyers, Effective C++



Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3

2001-12-12 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  1) A copyright holder is permitted to (withhold permission to modify or
  remove) (copyright notices) upon a work, or parts of a work, under

 Parentheses indicate the way I'm parsing this.  Am I wrong?  This
 concerns to copyright notices, right?

  2) A copyright holder is permitted to (withhold permission to modify or
  remove) (license texts) which apply to a work, or to a substantively

 and license texts.

  3) Works licensed under the GNU FDL meet the DFSG if:
 A) there are no Invariant Sections[*]; or

  [*] Cover Texts are not affected

 from the two statements above, I don't see how 3.A) follows.  In
 particular, AFAIUI, I can declare the documentation for a protocol as
 invariant.  That isn't covered by neither 1) nor 2) but yet it's not
 being allowed by 3.A).  What am I reading wrong?

-- 
Marcelo | Voodoo is a very interesting religion for the whole
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | family, even those members of it who are dead.
| -- (Terry Pratchett  Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)



Re: Mp3-decoders also patented?

2001-10-23 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   What's this I hear about MP3-decoding (as opposed to encoding) being
   patented and Fraunhofer [...]
  
  He claims to have a patent, but as far as I know nobody has ever seen
  a patent number so things are a bit vague.

 It.  Fraunhofer is an institute (or society, whatever -- Fraunhofer
 Society for advancement of applied Research), not a person.  The
 relevant patent number is US5579430.

-- 
Marcelo | The hippo of recollection stirred in the muddy waters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | of the mind.
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)



Re: Mp3-decoders also patented?

2001-10-23 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  But does it cover decoding? From everything I've heard, it only covers
  encoding, and Fraunhofer is making idle threats about decoding.

 Since the whole system moved to Delphion, it's a PITA to actually read
 patents and patents' claims.  From what I *can* read, the patent covers
 only encoding.  I don't know if there are other patents covering
 decoding (thanks Delphion, again).

-- 
Marcelo | I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, he said, BUT I COULD MURDER
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | A CURRY.
| -- Death addresses his new apprentice
|(Terry Pratchett, Mort)



Re: GPL/LGPL confusion

2001-07-05 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 02:16:53PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   
 This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner
 on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that
 the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms.
   
I don't understand, can you elaborate please?
  
  The word This referred to the quoted material which you chose to ignore.

 I didn't chose to ignore This.  I avoided quoting a large chunk
 of text that didn't relate directly to my question.  Since you want
 everything spelled out: can you explain what do you mean by the false
 idea that one must be the copyright owner on the components of a
 derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the the entirety of
 that work is available under some license terms, please?  I'm
 obviously missing some subtle point since you seem to be saying that
 this is false in general.

-- 
Marcelo | This signature was automatically generated with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Signify v1.07.  For this and other cool products,
| check out http://www.debian.org/



Re: GPL/LGPL confusion

2001-07-04 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:

  There's what they claim is the MIT X11 license, which doesn't match the
  X11 license on xfree86.org's website. I choose to call that the GNU X11
  license to make it clear what I'm talking about.

 This is the MIT X11 license:

 : Copyright 1989 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 :
 : Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
 : documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
 : provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
 : both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
 : supporting documentation, and that the name of MIT not be used in
 : advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
 : without specific prior written permission.  M.I.T. makes no
 : representation about the suitability of this software for any purpose.
 : It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty.

 This is the Open Group's license:

 : 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, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons
 : to whom the Software is furnished to do so, provided that the above
 : copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in all copies of
 : the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this
 : permission notice appear in supporting documentation.

 This is the XFree86 license:

 : Copyright (C) 1994-2001 The XFree86 Project, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 :
 : Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
 : copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
 : Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
 : without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
 : distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
 : permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
 : the following conditions:
 :
 : The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
 : in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

 The FSF site calls the Open Group's license the MIT X11 License.

-- 
Marcelo | Too many people want to *have written*.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)



Re: GPL/LGPL confusion

2001-07-04 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner
  on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that
  the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms.

 I don't understand, can you elaborate please?

-- 
Marcelo | Death was Nature's way of telling you to slow down.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, Strata)



Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use

2001-06-29 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  [blah blah blah]

 Thomas, two days ago you were ranting about off-topic posts on this
 list.  During those two days you have been the largest source of
 off-topic posts on this list.  Why you want this argument on public
 record is beyond me.  If you have got a problem with John, take it
 privately.  There is absolutely no need to Cc: d-l and I'm sure
 everyone is bored already.  

 I really hope this is the last post on this *way* off-topic subthread.
 I've set Mail-Followup-To accordingly, I hope you respect that.
 
-- 
Marcelo | She'd even given herself a middle initial - X - which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | stood for someone who has a cool and exciting middle
| name.
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Maskerade)



Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use

2001-06-28 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  The proper interpretation of this area of the GPL is not on topic for
  this mailing list.

 There's an annoying trend here: if Chloe posts it it's off topic.  It
 someone else does it, it's suddenly on topic?  Please make up your
 mind.  If you don't want to see off topic discussions going on, *stop
 posting replies to them*.

-- 
Marcelo | This signature was automatically generated with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Signify v1.07.  For this and other cool products,
| check out http://www.debian.org/



Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use

2001-06-20 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Copyright law is not concerned about that, and the question if
  something is a derived work from something else has nothing to do
  with the specific details of an abstract idea like an interface, only
  with the fine details on its implementation, like if code was copied
  or not.

 That's clear.  I think the question goes along the lines of:  if
 program A is under a non-GPL compatible license, and provides a plug-in
 interface, that is, it can be extended but the plugins are /not/
 required for program's A operation, and plugin B is under the GPL, can
 someone distribute program A and plugin B together?  A further question
 is the definition of together (in the context of copyright law).  As
 I understand it, the answer to the first question is no, by
 distributing A and B together you are encouraging the use of B with A
 (the enduser can do this, but I don't think that's the question here).
 I don't know about the second: both components inside a tarball is not
 allowed.  Both components on a CD? Both components on an ftp server
 (even if they are in different directories?  Think mirrors like
 sunsite).  One component on a webpage and a just a link to the second?

-- 
Marcelo | Greebo could, in fact, commit sexual harrassment simply
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | by sitting very quietly in the next room.
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Maskerade)



Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Viral [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian
  archives, not even non-US.

 http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package

 IIRC your questions are addressed there.

-- 
Marcelo | Mustrum Ridcully did a lot for rare species. For one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | thing, he kept them rare.
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies)



Re: libcompface's license

2001-02-21 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Hakan Ardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Have any of you tried to contact the upstream athor James Ashton?
  Otherwise I will. I do have a uptodate address to him that I digged
  up over another copyrigh issue last year. (That reply of his in the
  copyrigh file).

 Please do.

 Thanks,

--
Marcelo



libcompface's license

2001-02-18 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi,

 in a mail exchange with one of my applicants, he asked me about the
 license of libcompface.  Basically, from libcompface's readme, it's
 this:

 | Compface - 48x48x1 image compression and decompression
 | Copyright (c) James Ashton 1990.
 | Written 89/11/11
 | 
 | Feel free to distribute this source at will so long as the above
 | message and this message are included in full.

 This is extendend by a message from the author to read:

 | I don't mind modified versions being distributed.  Please included
 | the original copyright notices as specified and also prominently
 | note, if it is a modified version, the nature and author(s) of the
 | modifications.

 So, you are allowed to distribute modified and unmodified forms of
 libcompface's source.  Note it doesn't mention binary forms.
 Furthermore, libcompface's source carry this:

 | *  Compface - 48x48x1 image compression.
 | *
 | *  Copyright (c) James Ashton - Sydney University - June 1990.
 | *
 | *  Written 11th November 1889.
 | *
 | *  Permission is given to distribute these sources, as long as the
 | *  copyright messages are not removed, and no monies are exchanged. 
 | *
 | *  No responsibility is taken for any errors on inaccuracies inherent
 | *  either to the comments or the code of this program, but if reported
 | *  to me, then an attempt will be made to fix them.

 Does the no monies part mean you can't charge money for the act of
 distributing libcompface?

 TIA,

--
Marcelo



Re: libcompface's license

2001-02-18 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It seems obvious to me. Is there some reason you have for reading it
  another way?

 [1 ysabell:~] grep-available -s Package,Filename -P libcompface
 Package: libcompfaceg1
 Filename: dists/woody/main/binary-i386/libs/libcompfaceg1_1989.11.11-17.4.deb

 Package: libcompfaceg1-dev
 Filename: 
dists/woody/main/binary-i386/mail/libcompfaceg1-dev_1989.11.11-17.4.deb

 You can't charge any ammount of money for distributing this, yet it is
 in main.  In particular I can put this on a CDR, give it to someone and
 ask for a refund for the act of burning it, or even for the medium,
 because of the way that 'license' is worded.

--
Marcelo



Re: libcompface's license

2001-02-18 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Brian Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

| *  Written 11th November 1889.

  However I don't think you can copyright something you created in
  1889 :)

 Ah, that explains it! It's on the public domain now.  I reckon this was
 a great hacker, writing a program for a language, compiler and
 operating system that came into existance some eight decades later. :-)

--
Marcelo



Re: SGI Free SW license 1.1 compatability with Xfree86 style license

2000-06-30 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Scripsit James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   The SGI Free SW license B version 1.1 can be found at
   http://oss.sgi.com/projects/FreeB
  
  Only in M$ Word and PostScript formats. The PostScript seems to
  kill ghostscript, so it's hard to comment on.

*sigh*

Attached is a text version converted using mswordview, and cleaned
after the fact (%s/\[.*\.gif\]//) for legibility's sake.


 Marcelo
   SGI FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE B (Version 1.1 [02/22/2000])


   1. Definitions.


   1.1. Additional Notice Provisions means such additional
   provisions as appear in the Notice in Original Code under the heading
   Additional Notice Provisions.


   1.2. Covered Code means the Original Code or Modifications, or
   any combination thereof.
   
   
   1.3. Hardware means any physical device that accepts input,
   processes input, stores the results of processing, and/or provides
   output.
   
   
   1.4. Larger Work means a work that combines Covered Code or
   portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License.
   
   
   1.5. Licensable means having the right to grant, to the maximum
   extent possible, whether at the time of the initial grant or
   subsequently acquired, any and all of the rights conveyed herein.
   
   
   1.6. License means this document.
   
   
   1.7. Licensed Patents means patent claims Licensable by SGI that
   are infringed by the use or sale of Original Code or any Modifications
   provided by SGI, or any combination thereof.
   
   
   1.8. Modifications means any addition to or deletion from the
   substance or structure of the Original Code or any previous
   Modifications. When Covered Code is released as a series of files, a
   Modification is:
   
   
   A. Any addition to the contents of a file containing Original Code
   and/or addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing
   previous Modifications.
   
   
   B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Code or
   previous Modifications.
   
   
   1.9. Notice means any notice in Original Code or Covered Code,
   as required by and in compliance with this License.
   
   
   1.10. Original Code means source code of computer software code
   that is described in the source code Notice required by Exhibit A as
   Original Code, and updates and error corrections specifically thereto.
   
   
   1.11. Recipient means an individual or a legal entity exercising
   rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License or
   a future version of this License issued under Section 8. For legal
   entities, Recipient includes any entity that controls, is controlled
   by, or is under common control with Recipient. For purposes of this
   definition, control of an entity means (a) the power, direct or
   indirect, to direct or manage such entity, or (b) ownership of fifty
   percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares or beneficial
   ownership of such entity.
   
   
   1.12. Recipient Patents means patent claims Licensable by a
   Recipient that are infringed by the use or sale of Original Code or
   any Modifications provided by SGI, or any combination thereof.
   
   
   1.13. SGI means Silicon Graphics, Inc.
   
   
   1.14. SGI Patents means patent claims Licensable by SGI other
   than the Licensed Patents.
   
   
   2. License Grant and Restrictions.
   
   
   2.1. SGI License Grant. Subject to the terms of this License and
   any third party intellectual property claims, for the duration of
   intellectual property protections inherent in the Original Code, SGI
   hereby grants Recipient a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
   license, to do the following: (i) under copyrights Licensable by SGI,
   to reproduce, distribute, create derivative works from, and, to the
   extent applicable, display and perform the Original Code and/or any
   Modifications provided by SGI alone and/or as part of a Larger Work;
   and (ii) under any Licensable Patents, to make, have made, use, sell,
   offer for sale, import and/or otherwise transfer the Original Code
   and/or any Modifications provided by SGI. Recipient accepts the terms
   and conditions of this License by undertaking any of the
   aforementioned actions. The patent license shall apply to the Covered
   Code if, at the time any related Modification is added, such addition
   of the Modification causes such combination to be covered by the
   Licensed Patents. The patent license in Section 2.1(ii) shall not
   apply to any other combinations that include the Modification. No
   patent license is provided under SGI Patents for infringements of SGI
   Patents by Modifications not provided by SGI or combinations of
   Original Code and Modifications not provided by SGI.
   
   
   2.2. Recipient License Grant. Subject to the terms of this License
   and any third party 

Re: SGI Free SW license 1.1 compatability with Xfree86 style license

2000-06-30 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Due the complicated nature of part of the GLU library in mesa, the
  authors are considering switching to using the version distributed
  by SGI. The question has arisen as to whether the SGI Free SW
  license B is compatable with the DFSG.

Just in case someone takes a look at the actual code, there are some
.spec files there, and they state GLU is GPLed.  This is wrong (which
is funny, because it says there the RPM Packager is SGI :-)

 | Summary: OpenGL GLU library
 | Name: oss-opengl-glu
 | Version: 1.3
 | Release: 1
 | Copyright: GPL
 | Group: Development/Libraries
 | Source0: 
ftp://oss.sgi.com/www/projects/ogl-sample/download/ogl-sample.2126.tgz
 | Packager: Silicon Graphics ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 | Distribution: Red Hat

I eyeballed all of GLU's source and it's most definitively under the
SGI FSWL-B.

  As I would like to see all of mesa stay in main, we would
  appreciate any insight you can provide. I will provide a summary of
  the discussion to mesa-dev.

Ditto here.  If the license is DFSG, I'd like to package the OpenGL
manpages distributed with the SI (that is, if James doesn't want to do
that himself), all under this license.

TIA,


Marcelo



Re: SGI Free SW license 1.1 compatability with Xfree86 style license

2000-06-30 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Scripsit Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   Attached is a text version converted using mswordview,
  
  It looks mostly OK to me at first read.

Would it be worth to contact SGI and ask for clarifications?

And on the hardware implementation issue, this is SGI's
interpretation (from the SI FAQ[1]):

| Is SGI implicitly licensing any intellectual property by doing this?

| We are granting rights to claims in SGI patents embodied in the
| Sample Implementation, but onlyd for software drivers. We are not
| granting rights to those patents for use in hardware, and SGI will
| vigorously defend our IP against any IHVs who make use of these
| patents in their hardware without executing a patent license with
| SGI.

Regarding the other issues you mentioned:

| Why didn't SGI simply apply a license such as BSD, X, or Mozilla,
| with which the open source community is already familiar?

| Actually, the SGI Free Software License B is closely modeled after
| the BSD, X, and Mozilla licenses.  Among other effects, the B
| license enables code derived from the Sample Implementation to be
| distributed as part of the reference implementation of X or as part
| of Xfree86. SGI is, of course, a publicly held corporation, with
| certain minimum responsibilities to its shareholders, to protect its
| own software and the corporation. SGI used the minimum legalese to
| accomplish this in the license, and did its best to make the license
| as clear and concise as possible. This accounts for the greatest
| amount of difference between the SGI Free Software License B and
| Mozilla. One way in which the SGI Free Software License B is like
| BSD (and other similar licenses) is that it allows the user to use
| and modify the software in practically any way it likes - including
| even making commercial products from it.

Hmmm... the GLX License[2] (which lives at hearth of XFree86 4.0's GL
implementation, alongside with Mesa) contains similar clauses to those
you pointed out...

Thanks,


Marcelo


[1] http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/faq.html
[2] http://www.sgi.com/software/opensource/glx/glxlicense.txt



Re: [OT] What does 'General Public License' mean?

2000-06-20 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon

 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

What does 'General Public License' mean?  Is it 'General' + 'Public
License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'?
  
  Both are possible, and it is conceivable that RMS liked the ambiguity
  whan he picked the term.

Hmmm...

Does the phrase as a whole have a specific legal or commonly
accepted meaning?
  
  It is a commonly used name for the document whose full name is
  "GNU General Public License"

LOL!  I know what the GPL is.  I'm trying to explain some
misconceptions about it that have come over and over again on the
mailing list of my former LUG, namely, that everything on Linux has to
be GPLed, the KDE affair, what does "GPL compatible" mean, and in
general, why you can't change someone else's copyright at will (this
has came up on to ocassions, one, when Debian GNU/FreeBSD was
discussed, and a second one related to KDE), etc.  The problem is I
have to explain this in Spanish, and I have to start with the name
itself.  I've always thought it's funny to be able to read "GPL" in
two ways (with two, IMHO, rather different meanings), and I was
wondering if I was asleep on the particular day my English teacher
explained something that might be related to this.  I thought the
solution might lie on an "accepted (legal) interpretation" for the
whole phrase.  Is there such a thing?  I asked RMS once about this.
He had no comment.

  Using the phrase "general public license" when referring to
  anything else than that particular document would be silly, because
  many readers are going to assume you mean that one.

Ok...  let me put it in another way: are the any common phrases in
English that might be somehow related to this particular wording?  Or
yet in another way: is there a specific legal meaning for "public
license"?  If yes, how is this meaning changed by saying "General
(Public License)"?  Or yet antoher: what would "(General Public)
License" mean?  Who is /not/ part of the "general public"?

TIA,

Marcelo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]




[OT] What does 'General Public License' mean?

2000-06-19 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi,

 my apologies about the offtopic, but I hope someone on the list can
 help me with this.

 What does 'General Public License' mean?  Is it 'General' + 'Public
 License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'? I think the name in
 English for those things is, respectively, Noun Phrase and Adjetive
 Phrase.  And whatever the correct one is, what does the whole thing
 mean?  Does the phrase as a whole have a specific legal or commonly
 accepted meaning?

 TIA,


  Marcelo



Re: English licenses on non English speaking countries

1999-09-01 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi Jesus,

On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 07:06:55PM +0200, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote:

   The main problem here (in my opinion) is that we cannot
 distribute a program under a new license. Only the author can. And
 translating a license is making a new license...

Our current problem is a licence for software we have written.  We don't
want to change anyone's license, not now nor ever.  We are interested in
what happens if someone decides to ignore the license here.

   So, we better find a way to enforce the English-version of the 
 license, perhaps with an acompanying version in other languages, just
 for user information, and without legal value.

Exactly my suggestion.

   So, in my opinion (I'm not a lawyer, anyway), there is no
 problem at all. This is the most common opinion I've heard of.

Common sense and lawyers don't get along at all.  Common opinion doesn't
either.  Common usage, sometimes.

   WRT the specific case of a license not written in Spanish
 being enforceable in Spain, I guess that's only applicable to items
 directed to end-users, and sold in Spain. I mean, that when you (as a
 regular consumer) buy an item in Spain, any terms related to the
 transaction must be available in Spanish (or any other of the official
 languages where applicable). That's for sure not applicable to usual
 contracts between companies (otherwise, European-level commerce, for
 instance, would be almost impossible). I guess it is also not
 applicable to licenses of software packages, but I'm not sure of it. 

I've heard exactly the oppossite.  Namely, that if you live in Spain and
make a contract with a British company, the agreement must be translated to
Spanish.  But that's just rumours and not facts.

In a purshase you stablish a contractual relationship, that's why you can
sue if the item is not in good condition, or causes harm for example --
remember the coffee too hot incident a few years ago (McDonald's vs Some
Lady).  Even if there's no money involved I don't see why it has to be
different.  And I don't see why it has to be different for software
licenses.  You are giving up rights when you accept a license.  You should
be in a position where you know what you are giving up.

   We in Spain are also looking for lawyers who can help us in
 these directions, but it is being difficult :-( Please, let us know of
 any progress you can make... (BTW, the same to anyone in an EU
 country, since we should have similar legislation at this respect).

IP lawyers are expensive.  And there's a handful of them here.

Thanks,


Marcelo


English licenses on non English speaking countries

1999-08-31 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
 [ Don't Cc: me, I'm on -legal. ]

Hi,

 this is the best place I can think of to ask this question ...

 I have read several times that some countries don't accept legal
 documents (such as licenses, please correct me if a license doesn't
 fall into this category) in languages other than their official one.
 In particular I've read this might be is the case in Spain, France
 and Germany.

 The local group (Costa Rica) is researching this issue, but we are
 sincerely at lost.  I know Costa Rica is a party to the Berne
 convention, but it isn't a party to the Hague Convention (don't know
 if that's relevant).  We are asking here if it's valid to release a
 program under a lincense written in English (GPL) for which there's
 no official translation.  We are also researching what options are
 there (I've suggested paying for a certified translation of the GPL
 to be used as a _reference_, not a replacement)

 We have handed the GPL to a lawyer here (she's working pro bono), so
 she can evaluate the validity of the license under costarrican laws,
 and the first thing she asked for was a Spanish translation. :-(

 We will apprecciate any pointers,


 Marcelo


IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - OpenSource?

1999-05-28 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi,

attached is a copy of IBM PUBLIC LICENSE, extracted from the just
released Data Explorer 4.0 source.  I don't know if this is the same as
Jike's license, but I catched my eye that Freshmeat lists this thing as
OpenSource.  I have read this, and all I can say right now is this is
confusing!!!.  I browsed IBM's site, but I couldn't find any reference that
claims this license is OpenSource...


MarceloIBM PUBLIC LICENSE - Open Visualization Data Explorer VERSION 1.0

THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS IBM
PUBLIC LICENSE (AGREEMENT).  ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION
OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.

1. DEFINITIONS.

Contribution means:  
  a) in the case of International Business Machines Corporation
 (IBM), the Original Program, and
  b) in the case of each Contributor, 
   i)   changes to the Program, and
   ii)  any additions to the Program that are distributed in
conjunction with the Program under this Agreement;
 where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from
 and are distributed by that particular Contributor.
A Contribution 'originates' from a Contributor if it was made or added
to the Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such
Contributor's behalf.  Contributions do not include additions to the
Program which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in
conjunction with the Program under their own license agreement, and
(ii) are not derivative works of the Program.

Contributor means IBM and any other entity that distributes the
Program.

Licensed Patents mean those claims of patents licensable by a
Contributor which are necessarily infringed by each Contribution that
both originates from and is distributed by that particular
Contributor, if any, as well as claims of patents licensable by a
Contributor which are necessarily infringed by the Contributor's
Contribution when combined with the Program.

Original Program means the original version of the software
accompanying this Agreement as released by IBM, including source code,
object code and documentation, if any.

Program means the Original Program and Contributions.

Recipient means the entity that receives the Program under this
Agreement, including all Contributors.

2. GRANT OF RIGHTS

  a) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
 grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright
 license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, distribute,
 publicly display, publicly perform and sublicense the Contribution
 of such Contributor, if any, in source code and object code form.

  b) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
 grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent
 license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell,
 import and otherwise transfer the Contribution of such Contributor,
 if any, in source code and object code form.  The patent license
 shall not apply to the combination of the Contribution with any
 other software except that it shall apply to the combination of the
 Contribution and the Program where, at the time the Contribution is
 added, the addition of the Contribution causes the combination of
 the Contribution and the Program to be covered by the Licensed
 Patents.  Nor shall any machine, apparatus or other hardware be
 licensed hereunder.

  c) Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the
 licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are
 provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe the
 patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity.
 Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for claims
 brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual
 property rights or otherwise.  As a condition precedent to
 exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each Recipient
 hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual
 property rights needed, if any.  For example, if a third party
 patent license is required to allow Recipient to distribute the
 Program, it is Recipient's responsibility to acquire that license
 before distributing the Program.

  d) Each Contributor represents that to its knowledge it has
 sufficient copyright rights in its Contribution, if any, to grant
 the copyright license set forth in this Agreement.

3. REQUIREMENTS

A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form
under its own license agreement, provided that:
  a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
  b) its license agreement:

   i)   effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all
warranties and conditions, express and implied, including
warranties or conditions of 

Re: Is the OPL DFSG-ok?

1999-03-09 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 07:22:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

  You may not charge a fee for the sole service of
  providing access to and/or use of the OC via a network (e.g. the
  Internet), whether it be via the world wide web, FTP, or any other
  method.
 
 This is non-free.
 
 The clause was probably put there because the authors donot like the
 idea of someone making a profit from their work. However, as long as
 *someone* (e.g., the authors) makes the program available for free
 download it is highly unlikely that *anyone* would be able to make
 a profit from selling download rights.

Agreed.

What do you guys at opencontent.org think about this? Also, someone raised
the question if this license was run thru a lawyer, it seems like it
wasn't...


Marcelo


Re: Is the OPL DFSG-ok?

1999-03-09 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Mason, I'm quoting your entire message below for the people at
opencontent.org to read.

For the people at opencontent.org, please reply to
debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Marcelo

On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 01:42:04PM -0500, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 12:10:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
 
   OpenContent License (OPL)
   Version 1.0, July 14, 1998.
 
 Hm. This is just a guess, but my guess is that this hasn't been run
 through a lawyer. The language is fairly imprecise in places, and there
 are grammatical errors. The license treats the word OpenContent as having
 implicit meaning. The quality of language in the license doesn't lend itself
 to erasing ambiguities.
 
 Personally, I wouldn't use it until it has been greatly cleaned up.
 
 Just my opinion...
 
 -- 
 Mason Loring Bliss ((  In the drowsy dark cave of the mind dreams
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ))  build  their nest  with fragments  dropped
 http://acheron.ne.mediaone.net ((   from day's caravan. - Rabindranath Tagore
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Is the OPL DFSG-ok?

1999-03-08 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi,

 subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?... now that
 I think about it, shouldn't that be OCL?  The _text_ of the OPL says
 OpenContent License, not OpenContent Public License.

 If the answer is yes, 

a) can it be added to the DFSG as a DFSG-ok license?  How does one
   achieve this? (in other words, who shall be bugged?)

b) shouldn't it be shipped in /usr/doc/copyright?


   Marcelo


Re: Is the OPL DFSG-ok?

1999-03-08 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 06:42:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
 Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?...
 
 Post it to the list and let us have a look.

Ok.

Marcelo
 OpenContent License (OPL)
 Version 1.0, July 14, 1998.

 This document outlines the principles underlying the OpenContent
 (OC) movement and may be redistributed provided it remains
 unaltered. For legal purposes, this document is the license under
 which OpenContent is made available for use.

 The original version of this document may be found at
 http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml

 LICENSE

 Terms and Conditions for Copying, Distributing, and Modifying

 Items other than copying, distributing, and modifying the Content
 with which this license was distributed (such as using, etc.) are
 outside the scope of this license.

 1. You may copy and distribute exact replicas of the OpenContent
 (OC) as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
 conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
 copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
 notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any
 warranty; and give any other recipients of the OC a copy of this
 License along with the OC. You may at your option charge a fee for
 the media and/or handling involved in creating a unique copy of the
 OC for use offline, you may at your option offer instructional
 support for the OC in exchange for a fee, or you may at your option
 offer warranty in exchange for a fee. You may not charge a fee for
 the OC itself. You may not charge a fee for the sole service of
 providing access to and/or use of the OC via a network (e.g. the
 Internet), whether it be via the world wide web, FTP, or any other
 method.

 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the OpenContent or any
 portion of it, thus forming works based on the Content, and
 distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

 a) You must cause the modified content to carry prominent notices
 stating that you changed it, the exact nature and content of the
 changes, and the date of any change.

 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
 whole or in part contains or is derived from the OC or any part
 thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
 parties under the terms of this License, unless otherwise permitted
 under applicable Fair Use law.

 These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
 identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the OC, and
 can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
 themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
 sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
 distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work
 based on the OC, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms
 of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to
 the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who
 wrote it. Exceptions are made to this requirement to release
 modified works free of charge under this license only in compliance
 with Fair Use law where applicable.

 3. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
 signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to copy,
 distribute or modify the OC. These actions are prohibited by law if
 you do not accept this License. Therefore, by distributing or
 translating the OC, or by deriving works herefrom, you indicate
 your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
 conditions for copying, distributing or translating the OC.

 NO WARRANTY

 4. BECAUSE THE OPENCONTENT (OC) IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE
 IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE OC, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
 LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
 AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE OC AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY
 KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
 THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
 PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK OF USE OF THE OC IS WITH YOU.
 SHOULD THE OC PROVE FAULTY, INACCURATE, OR OTHERWISE UNACCEPTABLE
 YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

 5. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
 WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY
 MIRROR AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE OC AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO
 YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR
 CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT

Re: Is the OPL DFSG-ok?

1999-03-08 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 05:14:01PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
 On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
 
   subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?... now that
   I think about it, shouldn't that be OCL?  The _text_ of the OPL says
   OpenContent License, not OpenContent Public License.
  
   If the answer is yes, 
  
  a) can it be added to the DFSG as a DFSG-ok license?  How does one
 achieve this? (in other words, who shall be bugged?)
 
 The list given in the DFSG is not meant to be comprehensive. We don't
 have to add every DFSG-compliant license to it.

Ok.  Let me rephrase it.

If the OPL is going to be widely used for documentation and it's considered
to be a DFSG-ok license, shouldn't it be mentioned on the DFSG to encourage
it's use? (As opposed to other licenses currently used for documentation
which are -- questionably -- DFSG-ok... perl's FAQ comes to mind)

And, btw, I was really asking if the OPL is DSFG-ok.

Marcelo


Re: Postilion's Graphic Files Copyright

1999-02-05 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 12:44:00AM -, Darren Benham wrote:

  So, am I correct? If so what path should I take to:
  
1. make a legal temp. solution,
 Nothing could temporarily get it into main.

Agreed.

2. maybe fix the problem?
 Get the authors to change the copyright or replace the images (if at all
 possible) with some DFSG-Free ones.

Ditto.

Now this is were the plot thickens. WPrefs.app carries this README:

 This is the new set of icons for WPrefs.app. 
 These icons are NOT GPL. You are not allowed to use these icons
 for anything except WPrefs.app. It's also prohibited to
 redistribute this set apart from the WindowMaker source tree.

 All graphics are copyright 1998,1999 by Marco van Hylckama Vlieg

 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

(this showed up in 0.50.1, I think. It's not in 0.20.3)

Options:

* Move wmaker to non-free (please, no!)
* Remove the icons from the tarball (WPrefs will continue to work without
  them)
* Change Marco's copyright

The second option breaks WPrefs.app and I'm sure Alfredo (wmaker author)
won't like it, and that will get me in trouble with him. (Breaks postillion
even worse)

The third one is doable, but I don't know Marco's reasons for that
statement, so I don't know what his reaction will be.

A fourth option (which I dislike because it's very treacherous) is to call
the GPL into play.  I'm sure that statement is not compatible with the GPL,
is it?

I wish I knew why Alfredo let this is in the first place.

Now my question: doesn't this fall into the same messy kind of problem as
documentation does? Does it have to follow the DFSG point by point? (Think
'modifications' please)


Marcelo


[bob@redhat.com: Re: Gnome?]

1998-12-02 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
This is a non-sensical thread that refuses to die on the XL or Beowulf
list... it's just interesting to note s/o at RH is also talking with Troll.


Marcelo---BeginMessage---

Oleg,

I am actively talking to the Troll Tech folks and others about all 
these issues. 

I'll keep you posted on any progress we make.

Cheers,   Bob.


  I'm not sure that this is the forum for debating KDE and Qt library 
  licensing issues - does Gnome or KDE run on Extreme Linux machines?   ;-)
  
  But it should be noted that the Qt libraries are not -yet- open source.  
  Troll Tech have announced that they will be changing the license on their 
  next release of the Qt libraries (2.0) due out in early '99.
 
 Bob,
 
 Although this is off topic (I deleted the lists from the header), I think
 these political arguments are resulting in the fragmentation of the
 Linux market, much like UNIX got fragmented. 
 
 By the time GNOME was releasing an alpha version, KDE was a usable beta.
 Now KDE is a full release, there are hundreds of applications written that
 use KDE, and GNOME is still pretty much vaporware as far as ordinary users
 are concerned. Only now GNOME folks are talking about feature freeze and
 1.0 release. That seems like 6 months behind KDE.
 
 Trolls announced they will be releaseing the next version of Qt under an
 OSS compliant license. Where does it take GTK ? Will we have two different
 competing GUI toolkits or what ? What will Red Hat distribute, Gnome or
 KDE, 1 year from now ?
 
 
 Oleg Dulin,
 Clarkson University, Computer Engineering
 http://www.clarkson.edu/~dulino
 



Red Hat Software, Inc.-
Phone 919-547-0012 x227 Fax   919-547-0024
P.O. Box 13588  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709http://www.redhat.com

---End Message---


Re: [bob@redhat.com: Re: Gnome?]

1998-12-02 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 10:45:19AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 07:49:09AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
  This is a non-sensical thread that refuses to die on the XL or Beowulf
  list... it's just interesting to note s/o at RH is also talking with Troll.
 
 Why wouldn't there be?  There's someone from Debian talking to them.  =

 What I meant was that there's someone *else* *also* talking with Troll
 about the *same* thing. Can you say duplication of efforts? Joseph, peharps
 you'd be interested in talking to Bob about this, perhaps not.

 RH *might* also be trying to get Qt to make friends with the GPL...

Marcelo