Providing source for .iso files downloaded using bittorrent
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?
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?
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
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
[ 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
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?]
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?]
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
