Re: GNU/LinEx, Debian, and the GNU FDL
Hi RMS,
On Montag 08 September 2003 18:09, Richard Stallman wrote:
> While nominally Debian GNU/Linux does not include the non-free
> software, the non-free software is distributed from the same
> server. We cannot recommend one without effectively
> recommending the other. Further, the distribution itself
> surely contains references to that server, so putting a copy
> on a different server would not solve the problem.
Then, why don't you just create your own distribution based on
Debian? Take the official CD set, remove all references to
non-free, and distribute it from your server. Problem solved.
cu,
Thomas }:o{#
-- - http://www.bildungsbande.de/~sloyment/ - --
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
Re: Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)
Hi Edmund,
On Dienstag 03 Juni 2003 19:12, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > You have a similar but less severe problem if A is a
> > > high-precision digital recording (with lots of random
> > > noise in the low bits) and D is a compressed version:
> > > clearly A is source of D,
> >
> > I would argue that D is an excerpt of A.
>
> If someone were to improve the compression algorithm then you
> would want to go back and recompute D, particularly if D has
> an audible artefact, so I would say that A is source.
The GPL defines the "source code for a work [to mean] the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" (l.
155f). If I take a wav file, compress it into the Vorbis format,
and decompress it back to wav, I can modify this file the same
way as I could do with the original one. There are differences
in the files' contents, but there is no functional difference.
(The resulting file will even have the same length as the
original one, which is not true for a decompressed MP3.)
This is IMHO something entirely different than compiling and
decompiling a program. In this case, the entire program would
become less readable and thus much less modifyable.
> Of course, if we're talking about lossless compression
> (possibly preceded by throwing away the low bits)
With lossless compression algorithm (like flac), nothing is
thrown away. It works more like gzip.
> then I might agree it's an excerpt, but I was thinking about
> something like Ogg Vorbis.
I was thinking about these cases:
A) I don't have enough bandwith or webspace to distribute the
entire uncompressed work. So, in order to reduce the file size,
I could reduce the duration of the recording, by only
distributing the most interesting part. This would be clearly an
excerpt.
B) If I wanted to preserve the sample's duration, I could also
throw away details all across the sample, by reducing the sample
rate, the bit resolution, and the number of channels. I would
still consider this an excerpt.
C) I could also use a more advanced lossy compression codec like
Vorbis. Like in A and B, I would throw away data, but the losses
would be better selected. I would still consider this an
excerpt, and an even more desirable one than the one in B,
especially for modification purposes.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://www.bildungsbande.de/~sloyment/
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
Re: Packages with non-original copyrighted sounds
Hi Henning,
On Dienstag 27 Mai 2003 00:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > * the right to publicly display the work (in its physical
> > form) (e.g. a painting),
>
> [...]
>
> > * (*NEW*) the right to make the work available to the
> > public (on demand, on a computer network)
> >
> > The DFSG does not really care about these things,
>
> In practise the license evaluation on debian-legal cares about
> all these, though in default of evidence to the contrary, we
> assume that the author intends to include them when he allows
> "modifications and distribution" in general.
The problem is that propably none of these rights legally counts
as 'distribution'. As I understand it, 'distribution' means that
copies (or the original) of the work are offered to the public
or that a member of the public receives a copy (or the original)
of the work, either temporarily or permanently. So, e.g. showing
people a movie would not be a distribution.
The assumption reminds me of the Debian Legal beginner's
assumption that every program that can be downloaded free of
charge can be freely redistributed.
> However, if a
> license were to explicitly explude, say, public performance
> from the rights it grants, I'm fairly sure that d-l would
> unanimously consider it non-free.
This would clearly fail DSFG6.
> (We would probably be somewhat divided on the question of
> whether we accept a license that demands disclosure of source
> in exchange for public performance of [a modified] work, but
> that is another matter).
This would be very inconvenient in certain situations, so it
might be considered by some people as a restriction on certain
fields of endeavor.
In how far it makes sense at all to require the distribution of
the source code of music or of an audio recording is another
question.
> > [If the DFSG actively demanded the rights of redistribution,
> > broadcasting, and so on,]
> > the GPL and the BSD would not qualify as "free" if applied
> > on non-program-works.
>
> How do you reach that conclusion?
Because the GPL and the BSD license do not grant these rights.
(This is a really big problem as people are already beginning to
create free music, although there are not really any free
licenses around. Some of them even just write "Copyleft (inv.C)
200x ". See for example, http://www.thebond.org . So,
what should I tell them? The only thing I can do is to collect
music under the EFF OAL and the Green Linuxtag OML, in the hope
that in a year or two when somebody has written a really free
license, I can still contact most of the authors and ask them to
relicense their works.)
> One of the classic scenarios
> we apply to licenses in general (when the issue comes up) is
> "suppose I wanted to take the source code for this program and
> use it as part of a painting" - then we want to be sure that
> the painting itself could be Free in a useful way.
As I read the Authors Rights Law (-- but IANAL --), the only
things forbidden by default, that can be done with computer
programs are copying, distribution, and modification.
If I am allowed to modify a program, and I use it as part of a
painting, I guess it will still stay a computer program included
in a painting, but not become a painting. So I would not need
permission from the author of the program in order to, say
publically display a slide of the painting, using a projector.
A better example would be: Could I use the KDE sound effects in a
KDE theme song and then radio-broadcast it? I guess I could not,
as I do not have permission to broadcast the KDE sound effects.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://217.160.174.154/~sloyment/
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
Re: Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)
Hi Edmund,
On Dienstag 13 Mai 2003 11:54, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So the problem here is that the source code of sample data
> > is more sample data. These samples might again require their
> > sources, and so the resulting tree could be enormous.
>
> When distributing the source, you don't have to distribute the
> whole tree; you only have to distribute the leaf nodes and the
> Makefile or build script.
This is not the way music is usually made. Usually, there is no
Makefile.
When I make music with Soundtracker, it mixes together samples
very accurately and automatically, however this is an exception,
not the rule. Most musicians use tools that produce
unreproducable results (e.g. a MIDI sequencer feeding a
proprietary synthesizer, connected to an analogue sound card,
running at 44091, or maybe 44107 Hz.) Also, Soundtracker only
mixes one level. If I wanted to use a second of a previously
rendered song as a sample for the next song, I would have to cut
it out manually.
> If you are only using a one-second sample from a recording,
> then you might prefer to distribute just that one second as
> source, provided, of course, that the licence allows it.
Would the GPL allow it?
> You can take an extract from a GPL work and distibute it under
> the GPL.
...from the source code...
If you would like to distribute a piece of a binary you would
still have to bundle it with the full source code unless you
could trim the source code in a way that still lets the compiler
build that certain binary piece you need. But this should be
quite impossible.
> Unfortunately, you can't do the same with a GFDL work if
> it has "invariant sections".
Of course.
The problem discussed in this subtread was mainly if it was
possible at all for a sound recording to fit the GFDL's
definition of 'transparent form'.
> > This is why I think that licenses of free music recordings
> > should not require the distribution of their source code at
> > all.
>
> I tried to write a paragraph explaining why I think it should
> be all right to require source, the way the GPL defines
> source, but changed my mind while writing it.
>
> Take for example the case where you create D by digitalising
> an analogue recording A and then want to contribute D to a GPL
> work W.
>
> Anyone who wants to make an improved version of D would
> obviously like to have access to A, so A is clearly source,
> but you can't include the original analogue recording in the
> source distribution, so you have a problem. If you were to
> destroy A then you might be able to argue that D is now the
> source, but you might not want to destroy your valuable
> historic wax cylinder any more than you want to distribute it,
> whatever that means.
The only Debian package where the source was lost so that the
binary has to serve as 'source code' is some emulator rom. I
don't think D-L would ever suggest an author to destroy the
sources on purpose.
> You have a similar but less severe problem if A is a
> high-precision digital recording (with lots of random noise in
> the low bits) and D is a compressed version: clearly A is
> source of D,
I would argue that D is an excerpt of A. So, if A qualifies as
'source code', D would do that, too, as it is supposed to be
converted back into a format compatible with A. Thus the result
can be modified as easily as A. But this is only my oppinion,
not the true interpretation of the GPL.
Unfortunally, the DSL defines D to be a binary.
> but the requirement for everyone who distributes
> D to keep a copy of A, or for written offers to be provided,
> is quite a burden. Perhaps it would be doable if some public
> sound archive could keep the original data and provide written
> offers to distributors for a reasonable charge. Public sound
> archives do exist, but I don't know whether they can provide
> written offers to satisfy the GPL requirement on distributors.
Somewhere on this planet, bandwith must be really cheap...
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://217.160.174.154/~sloyment/
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Hi RMS,
On Mittwoch 28 Mai 2003 00:40, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> A political essay is (typically) written by certain
>>> persons to persuade the public of a certain position.
>>> If it is modified, it does not do its job. So it makes
>>> sense, socially, to say that these cannot be modified.
>
>> Then, why are there so many political essays under the
>> GFDL, without invariant sections?
>
> You'd have to ask their authors about that. I won't criticize
> their decisions, but I don't see a reason to do it.
I think that my question was not clearly phrased. I do not want
to know why people do something that does not make sense in your
oppinion.
What I am interested in is how you come to the conclusion that it
is more difficult (or even impossible) to persuade the public of
a certain position with a modifyable essay than it would be with
a non-modifyable one. I do not understand the mechanism that is
supposed to make the modifyable text less persuasive.
So, can you construct an example?
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://www.bildungsbande.de/~sloyment/
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Hi,
On Sonntag 25 Mai 2003 01:19, Richard Stallman wrote:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified,
> it does not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say
> that these cannot be modified.
Then, why are there so many political essays under the GFDL,
without invariant sections?
"GNU/Linux -- Milestone on a Way into a GPL Society" by Stefan
Merten, "GNU/Linux is not a Thing of Value, and that is Fine!" by
Stefan Meretz, "Free People in Free Agreements" by Annette
Schlemm, Stefan Meretz and Joerg Bergstedt, just to name a few.
These and tons more can be found on http://www.opentheory.org
(but unfortunally only in German (I have however a draft
translation of the Milestone text (without footnotes)).).
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://217.160.174.154/~sloyment/
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
Re: Packages with non-original copyrighted sounds
Hi
On Freitag 23 Mai 2003 11:21, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
> IMHO, i believe that there are an urgent need for a library of
> free sound, music, samples, etc. to take as a base to ease the
> creation of free software which need sounds.
It is also urgently needed for the creation of free music that is
not necessarily used by free programs. Due to the lack of free
samples, composers are currently forced into the creation of
non-free music.
> The library should asure at least that:
>
> - The author of each file is clearly identified and
> acknowledged. -
> License is sufficiently permissive to be
> clearly compatible with Debian guidelines.
I don't think this is enough.
For works other than computer programs, even more things are
forbidden by default (some might not be applicable for certain
kinds of works):
* the right to publicly display the work (in its physical form)
(e.g. a painting),
* the right to publicly recite the work (e.g. a text work),
* the right to publicly perform a work (e.g. a piece of music or
theatre play),
* the right to publicly display the work (immaterially) (e.g. a
movie),
* the right to broadcast a work,
* the right to publicly play back a work from a recording (audio
or video),
* the right to make a broadcast of the work publicly audible
(e.g. using a TV running in a pub), and
* (*NEW*) the right to make the work available to the public (on
demand, on a computer network)
(This is the situation in Germany, as I understand it. Maybe
these rights vary a bit in other countries).
The DFSG does not really care about these things, and if it did,
the GPL and the BSD would not qualify as "free" if applied on
non-program-works. This means that Debian cannot become entirely
free regarding the rights listed above in the near future, but
it should be possible to create a subset of Debian that uses a
clarified DSFG6 clause and thus cares about the above rights.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://217.160.174.154/~sloyment/
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)
Hi folks,
On Mittwoch 07 Mai 2003 18:58, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > you should be able to do a
> > text representation of a FFT or something, I would've
> > thought. Long, and ugly, but editable as text,
>
> That's no better than a hex dump of the PCM data. It's not any
> more editable in a text editor (possibly, quite less) than a
> hex dump of an ELF object. _Technically_ it's editable.
> Practically, it's not --- and that's what matters for the
> GFDL.
I am making music with Soundtracker. It essentially mixes small
samples into one big sample which can either be played live or
dumped into a WAV file.
For such a WAV recording made with Soundtracker, the source code
would be the so-called "module", which is a file consisting of
two parts:
* the scores and other setup that tells Soundtacker how to mix
the samples together (useless without the samples) (very
small, can be gzipped to 1-2 KB) and
* the sample data (you can think of it as WAV files)
So the problem here is that the source code of sample data is
more sample data. These samples might again require their
sources, and so the resulting tree could be enormous.
This is why I think that licenses of free music recordings should
not require the distribution of their source code at all.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://mirror1.superhits.ch/~sloyment/
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Hi Zack,
On Sonntag 20 April 2003 03:19, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I am not a Debian developer, but I am one of the upstream
> developers of a piece of software (GCC) that would be affected
> by this proposal, and so I would like to say that I
> wholeheartedly support it. I wrote a lot of the text in the
> cpp manual, at a time when its license was the old vague FSF-
> documentation license; I'm not at all happy with its
> relicensing under terms I don't consider to be free.
Has there been a version under the old license that already
included your changes? Has the old license been DFSG-approved,
or was it even GPL-compatible? If so, you could start
* a free (maybe even GPLed) fork from the old free version, and
* maybe also a fork of the non-free version that will function
more as a supplement to the free version than a full text,
and therefore has all of the unnecessary free stuff removed.
(Would the GFDL allow this?)
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://mirror1.superhits.ch/~sloyment/
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
Hi Manoj,
On Friday 25 April 2003 10:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
> >non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification,
> >availability of the source code etc., but at least freely
> >distributable in any medium, by anybody, for any price.
>
> Why are we special casing invariant sections? There are
> packages in main that are freely distributable in any medium,
^^^ Really?
> by anybody, and can be modified, but not for commercial
> distribution --
I don't understand how this relates to the GFDL discussion.
> arguably, these are as free as anything else,
> since you can't even ask for money for them.
I was not talking about beer freedom above.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
Hi Steve,
On Saturday 26 April 2003 06:15, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe
> Gruettmueller wrote:
> > I don't think that freely distributable documents should be
> > mixed with stuff which is not [freely distributable]
> Why should Debian distinguish between different shades of
> non-freeness?
Because I think this would make it easier to throw non-free
things out of main.
> Are you aware that there is much software
> already in non-free which is freely redistributable but
> non-modifiable?
Then leave it there until someone starts complaining about it.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
Hi Glenn,
On Friday 25 April 2003 05:00, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe
Gruettmueller wrote:
> > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about
> > to be thrown out of main are at least as freely
> > distributable as any other package in main. This is a
> > quality that many packages in non-free do not share with
> > them.
>
> There's lots of software in non-free that is freely
> distributable, but non-free for other reasons, such as
> limitations on commercial use. Non- free things should go in
> non-free, even if there's a lack of free equivalents.
I agree that they should not stay in main, but I don't think
that freely distributable documents should be mixed with stuff
which is not allowed to be distributed commercially, or which
according to its license, cannot be exported to Iraq.
If the new section proposed below is considered a subset of
'non-free', then I fully agree with the above.
> > As I don't have non-free in my
> > apt/sources.list, from my point of view, moving these docs
> > to the 'non-free' section would practically mean the same
> > thing as moving them to the trash dump. I guess this step
> > would be far too radical.
>
> Requiring you to add a line or two to sources.list isn't
> "trashing" anything.
I'm not convinced, yet. Can I configure apt-cache that it
produces red '[contrib]' and '[non-free]' warnings like
packages.debian.org?
> If this is a "radical" move, I'd say the earlier one of moving
> non-free software to non-free was an order of magnitude more
> "radical".
Is there any documentation of the history of the 'non-free'
section? Have there been similar discussions?
> > So, now I'm repeating an idea that I alredy mentioned here,
> > after selfhtml had been kicked:
> >
> > * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
> >non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification,
> >availability of the source code etc., but at least freely
> >distributable in any medium, by anybody, for any price.
>
> Distributors can already do this. I don't think Debian should
> be expending time categorizing non-free into "non-free and
> really non-free"; let people who would actually use the
> distinction (distributors) spend the time. (It'd be a fair bit
> of time, requiring further analysis of clearly non-free
> licenses.)
Right. The suggestion was primarily adressed to those people who
would like to change the DFSG. If they want to have guidelines
for lesser free software, in order to build a lesser free
variant of Debian, they are always free to create them, but
please not by replacing the original DFSG and the original
Debian!
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
Hi Matthew and all,
On Thursday 24 April 2003 13:21, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I agree with what's expressed in the FAQ, but apart from the
> section on why we think software and documentation should be
> treated equally under the DFSG (quite a good argument there,
> BTW) there's nothing there about why we can't as a project,
> for instance, just relax the rules of the DFSG generally.
As a Debian user, I am glad that there is this set of rules --
namely the DFSG -- that strictly followed, help keeping Debian
100 % free software. I hope that these rules will not be
softened, so that in the end, Debian becomes a second SuSE.
I am also glad that the Debian project treats all different
sorts of content the same way, as I am very enthusiastic about
the idea of a transition of the principles of free software
towards other areas. The FSF has quite disappointed me in this
regard, as they not only deny the leadership of a general
free-everything-movement, but also discourage people from being
consequent by giving them a bad example. For me, this is another
reason why Debian should keep its rules as they are, and
continue to apply them consequently.
On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be
thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any
other package in main. This is a quality that many packages in
non-free do not share with them. As I don't have non-free in my
apt/sources.list, from my point of view, moving these docs to
the 'non-free' section would practically mean the same thing as
moving them to the trash dump. I guess this step would be far
too radical.
Also, it seems to be more difficult to write and test
documentation than software, as it works on human beings, not
machines. Further, there still is too few good documentation.
This makes me think that trashing freely distributable
documentation would not be wise.
So, now I'm repeating an idea that I alredy mentioned here,
after selfhtml had been kicked:
* Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification,
availability of the source code etc., but at least freely
distributable in any medium, by anybody, for any price.
* Therefore, create a subset of the GFDL (a 'relaxed' GFDL)
which regulates what can go in there and what not, but not as
a replacement of the current GFDL, but rather a different set
of rules for a different purpose.
I think this would be a good compromise for those people who
want non-free docs out of main, and those who don't want them
trown onto the 'non-free' trash dump, and those who want both.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: question about moral rights
Hi Mark,
On Thursday 24 April 2003 19:37, Mark Rafn wrote:
> A few people have brought up the topic of Moral Rights, with
> which I am not very familiar. They sound like some sort of
> meta-copyright which an author cannot assign, and may not be
> able to grant permission over.
>
> Does anyone have a pointer to some description of these rights
> that a layman like myself might understand? I'm particularly
> interested in how they relate to the GFDL and why they would
> apply to documentation and not to software.
* * * IANAL * * *
The German Authors Rights Law is available at
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/index.html
For an English version, use the Google translation tools:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbundesrecht.juris.de%2Fbundesrecht%2Furhg%2Findex.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&ie=ISO-8859-1&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
(Although this translation seems to be quite readable, I'm a bit
confused about the translation of the headline, "Copyright law
and used patent rights". Literally, it should translate to "Law
About Authors Rights and Similar Protection Rights". What the
hell are "used patents rights"???)
Relevant passages might be:
| UrhG § 14 distortion of the work
|
| The author has the right to forbid distortion or another
| impairment of its work which is suitable, to endanger its
| entitled mental or personal interests in the work.
and
| UrhG § 42 recall right because of changed conviction
|
| (1) the author can recall a right to use opposite the owner,
| if the work does not correspond to its conviction any longer
| and cannot to it therefore the utilization of the work any
| longer be zugemutet. The legal successor of the author (§ 30)
| can explain the recall only if he prove that the author before
| its death would have been entitled to the recall and from the
| explanation of the recall was prevented or this ordered
| last-willingly.
|
| (2) without the recall right cannot be done in advance. Its
| practice cannot be excluded.
|
| (3) the author has to compensate the owner of the right to use
| appropriately.
This point is interesting. How can anyone ever compensate six
billion licensees approprietely? ;o)
| The remuneration must at least cover the
| expenditures, which the owner of the right to use up to the
| explanation of the recall made; however here expenditures,
| which are allotted to uses already pulled, remain out of
| consideration. The recall becomes only effective if the author
| replaced the expenditures or carried security out for it. The
| owner of the right to use has to communicate within one period
| from three months to explanation of the recall the
| expenditures to the author; if it does not follow this
| obligation, then the recall becomes already effective at the
| end of this term.
|
| (4) if the author wants to again use the work after recall,
| then he is obligated to offer to the former owner of the right
| to use an appropriate right to use for appropriate conditions.
|
| (5) the regulations in § 41 exp. 5 and 7 are to be used
| accordingly.
- - - - -
I can't find any hint why software should be different.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: Hardware license
Hi!
On Thursday 05 December 2002 14:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> and the law explicitly permits redistribution
> of a particular copy once it has been sold or given to someone
> with the permission of the author.
Same thing applies to the German Authors Rights Law.
Sloppy translation:
| §17 [...] 2. If the original or copies of the work have been
| [...legally...] distributed [...by selling...], it is allowed
| to redistribute them, except for renting them.
Isn't this exception called "First Sale Doctrine" in the US?
(However, I guess, if someone first distributes his own copies
under the terms of the GPL, and then exploits the loop hole
above in order to distribute someone else's copies of the same
piece of software without the source code, he'll lose his rights
under the GPL to further distribute his own copies...)
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: Hardware license
Hi
On Monday 02 December 2002 21:04, Walter Landry wrote:
> Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi
> > Yes; I'm currently looking at that and the OpenIPCore
> > license.
> >
> > http://www.opencores.org/OIPC/OHGPL.shtml.
> >
> > Are these both compliant licenses?
>
> The OpenIPCore license is a more of a copyleft, so you'll
> probably be happier with it. Looking through the license, it
> looks mostly ok.
There are some points about it that strike me. Maybe I'm
completely wrong about it...
1. This license is only a draft. Is it a good idea to use it
already? Future versions could be incompatible with it.
2. Is this license GPL compatible? In the future, digital
devices will propably use the GPLed F-CPU, so this might be
a big problem, then.
3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
non-free circuit. This is like creating a non-free artwork
out of Debian CDs, but far more severe. I am not sure if
there is a possible strategy about this at all, and what the
OHGPL is doing about this.
4. I can't find the phrase that allows distribution of a
modified version.
5. Paragraph 3, which forbids selling but allows a fee OTOH,
seems to be against the wording of DFSG 1. Is there a
license that has been classified DFSG-free which uses a
similar wording?
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
OT: Re: YAST License, is redistribution permitted?
Hi!
On Saturday 16 November 2002 02:55, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/8.1/COPYRIGHT.yast
> >
> > This license made me install Debian.
>
> Why?
In order to get rid of YaST.
> According to some folks on debian-devel, it should have
> been a reason for staying *away* from Debian. :-P
Really? :o)
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: YAST License, is redistribution permitted?
Hi Marcello,
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:06, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> 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
This license made me install Debian.
> 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.
That's how I understand it, too.
OTOH, the GNU website only mentions that distribution for a fee
is prohibited:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense
> [ 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. ]
"Mailbox" used to be a common German term for a BBS.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Making things non-free again (was: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED)
All standard disclaimers apply! I am not a lawyer. I am not a
Debian developer. etc.
Hi
On Thursday 31 October 2002 19:03, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > > Contrary to what people might think, not only can I
> > > chance the license of version X, I can change the license
> > > of version X minus 1, X minus 2, X minus 3...
> >
> > You can certainly offer it under a new license; but normally
> > you can't retract the old license.
IIRC, in Germany, an author can cease a copyright license in two
situations:
* If a publisher does not publish, the author can cease his
exclusive rights, and look for another publisher. (s. §41)
* If an author wants to stop a work from being published, e.g.
for reasons of conscience, he can do so. However, during the
ban, the work will be completely unpublishable. (s. §42)
I think these two points have only little relevance to free
software.
Maybe the first one could be used to free a non-free work.
The second one could be used to unfree things. However, it seems
that nobody would want to do that. I can only think of the
following situations:
* A free software programmer suddenly turns into a free
software hater. No gain for the author at all, just
retribution.
* A former FS programmer writes a non-free clean room
implementation as a replacement for the tool that he wants to
ban.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Def. of "Free Software" / "Open Source" (was: license questions)
Hi, Ali!
On Monday 07 October 2002 18:13, Ali Akcaagac wrote:
> a) somehow everyone has a slightly different understanding of
>'opensource' and the terms of 'free software'.
There are three definitions of these terms which people commonly
agree on:
* The "Free Software Definition" of the GNU project:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
* The "Debian Free Software Guidelines":
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html#guidelines
* The "Open Source Definition" of the Open Source Initiative
(based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines):
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Of course, these definitions are *slightly* different, but
disallowing forks is not part of any of them. So, if you are
using another definition, please refer to it, first.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Hi
On Thursday 13 June 2002 22:58, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:14:46PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2) We don't want a music webcaster to take DFCL-licensed
> > > piece of music out of "the commons" because he runs the
> > > music stream through some sort of highly proprietary
> > > equalization/compression process before transmitting it.
> > > Such a transformation might not be reversible. If this is
> > > the most popular form of dissemination for that piece of
> > > music, we have to be sure that this broadcaster is
> > > obligated to make the original piece of music, as licensed
> > > under the DFCL, available.
1. I think that the piece of music in question will most likely
not be presented in its preferred form for modification but
as something rendered by a sample mixer or
sequencer-based synthesizer program.
So, if the license requires a webcaster to provide the source
code to his audience, he will have to do it anyway, with or
without compression.
The only exception I can think of are "AAD" recordings.
(These recordings are recorded and mixed in an analog
environment, and then digitized as the final step) Only in
their case I would call the presentable form "source code".
2. I do not agree that lossy compression changes the
source-binary-status of a file. Compressing a binary will
result in a binary, and compressing a source WAV will create
a derivative work's source OGG.
> >
> > Are you thinking of MP3's here?
>
> I was thinking of .oggs, actually. ;-)
>
> Actually, except for tag editing, neither .ogg nor .mp3 is the
> preferred format for making changes to an audio work.
You can turn the OGG file into a WAV file without any problem,
and as you state below, WAV files are suitable to be modified.
The only problem in this is that you end up having a file that
is several times larger.
> I don't
> even want to think about the artifacts that would result if
> you attempted this.
>
> The preferred form for making changes to an audio stream would
> instead be, for instance, WAVE or FLAC.
There are some musicians who work with Mini Discs.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
PS: Branden, the other mail you received was accidentally
addressed to you because I was in a hurry. Please don't plonk me
for it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Endorsements
Hi
On Friday 14 June 2002 04:39, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:36:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 05:58 , Branden Robinson
wrote:
> > > If you
> > >incorporate that work into a GPLed one, the endorsement
> > > terms would be "masked off", but would re-assert
> > > themselves once the independently-copyrighted were were
> > > extracted from its GPLed container.
> >
> > 1) Take a document A under the proposed license.
> > 2) Convert it to the GPL, by adding section B.
> > 3) Remove section B. The GPL allows this.
> >
> > Result: Document A, under the GPL. No endorsement clause.
> >
> > I believe that any license attempting to stop (3), above,
> > would be in contradiction to the GPL's no additional
> > restrictions clause.
>
> As I just told Glenn Maynard, I think I refuted this argument
> in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> The GPL convertibility only applies if the DFCLed work is
> distributed as part of a separate GPLed work. Once extracted
> from its GPLed housing, the endorsements clause reasserts
> itself because the GPL cannot *remove* the copyright or the
> license on another work.
IANAL, so I am not entirely sure, but...
In step 2, the guy who adds section B gains a copyright on the
_entire_ text, independently of its original copyright, not just
on section B.
So, when you remove section B again, you are free to choose,
whether you regard it as the original DFCLed work or a derivate
work of the GPLed big one.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
100 copies in 30 days (was: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD)
IANAL
Hi
On Thursday 13 June 2002 00:07, Walter Landry wrote:
> How about adding a section 3d) to the GPL with something like
>
> d) Only distribute 100 or fewer copies in a 30 day time
> period.
If one licensee can distribute 100 copies each 30 days, not
bundled with its source code, 100 licensees can do this with
10,000 copies. As there is no law that prevents redistribution
of legally distributed copies, a company could buy these 10,000
copies from the 100 licensees and sell them without source code.
The hole in the copyleft would be big enough to drive a death
star size spacecraft carrier mothership through.
cu
Thomas
}:o{#
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPL-Compatibility into the other direction (was: GPL compatibility of DFCL)
Hi
On Friday 14 June 2002 05:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Essentially what I am getting at is the fact that just
> > because a doc and a program are shipped in the same tarball,
> > does this really mean that you need to try to cover them
> > with the same license?
>
> If they're just distributed together in tarball -- if it's
> just "mere aggregation", then probably not, no. However, see
> above. The document might mingle with the source more than
> that. Free music, images, or textures might be integrated
> tightly into a game, for instance.
>
> Remember, the DFCL isn't just for manuals.
I think that the GPL compatibility should be bidirectional.
At the moment, you propose that there should be an option to
treat a DFCL-licensed document as GPLed, so that merging it
with other GPLed stuff (e.g. program code) will not be a
problem.
As the GPL demands that a work derived from a GPLed work is
published under the terms of the GPL (if it is to be published
at all), a game including DFCLed multimedia stuff and GPLed
program code would have to be GPLed. So far so good.
Now, I think it would be great if the game would not only be
GPLed but also DFCLed. The DFCL cannot enforce that, of course,
otherwise it would not be GPL-compatible. But maybe some game
creators would want to do that voluntarily.
Well, can they do that at all? The final work will contain some
GPLed parts, and the GPL propably does not allow to relicense
them under the DFCL. So not the entire work can be DFCLed.
Supposed the DFCL gets a copyleft mechanism that does not
tolerate that parts of the work are only GPLed, the only option
left for the game creator is to drop the DFCL, making the game
as a whole only GPLed.
Maybe this is a bad example, as I'm not sure whether a game is
copyrightable, except for being a composite work. Here is a
better one:
Lets assume there is a well-commented GPLed program, and some
DCFLed documentation. Now, someone wants to add a chapter about
the internals of the program and therefore include some of the
GPLed program source code into the documentation. This is
possible, as the DCFLed work magically switches to GPL. So, the
resulting documentation can be GPLed, as demanded by the GPL.
But can it still be DCFLed in parallel (excluding only the
imported GPLed parts)?
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [cfi-en] Printing restriction -- should move to non-free ?
Hi, Mikael!
On Monday, 22. April 2002 23:27, Mikael Hedin wrote:
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry writes:
> > But this is all premature, let's see if the translator is
> > willing to follow the original author's copyright.
> [...]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT
> > TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host mxpool01.netaddress.usa.net
> > [165.212.8.32]: 550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User not known
>
> so I guess the conclusion is that cfi-en will have to move.
> Bah.
> [...]
Please don't give up so fast!!!
Have you contacted Linus Walleij about it? I know that his email
account is still alive. And maybe he knows the translator
personally?
Also, you could search the web for Daniel Arnrup, in order to
find out his new email account.
Good luck!
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#143281: RFP: scummvm -- free implementation of LucasArts S.C.U.M.M.
Hi
On Friday, 19. April 2002 11:53, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:45:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille
wrote:
> > Unfortunately it may not be quite so free. I haven't checked
> > it in detail, but I'm told the only decent sound support is
> > of dubious license status.
It seems that in the directory sound, there are some files
(fmopl.cpp, mixer.cpp and some of the .h files) which do not
carry a GPL statement. So, maybe you should ask the upstrem
author(s) to clarify this.
> Could anybody please sort out whether it is possible to split
> it into
>
> main/scummvm
Are there any DFSG free SCUMM adventures around? To me, this
looks similar to the situation of lxdoom, which is in contrib.
> non-free/scummvom-sound
This seems not a good idea. If the parts in question are really
non-free, they must not be linked with GPLed code. So if they
are scummvm-specific, they cannot go into non-free, either.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Books under the FDL (was: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft)
Hi
On Wednesday, 13. February 2002 22:37, Walter Landry wrote:
> [Excellent Analysis by Stephen Ryan omitted]
>
> This all begs the question, why does the FDL exist at all?
> The rationale given at
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html
>
> is that it will encourage commercial entities to fund free
> documentation. However, it still requires the documentation
> to be free, and it doesn't seem to have been adopted by any
> commercial publishers. I am willing to be educated, though.
I know of two books:
Stefan Meretz
Linux & CO. Freie Software - Ideen für eine andere Gesellschaft.
(Linux & CO. Free Software - Ideas for a Different Society)
Publisher: AG SPAK
ISBN 3-903830-16-7
Annette Schlemm, Jörg Bergstedt, Stefan Meretz
Freie Menschen in freien Vereinbarungen - Gegenbilder zur Expo
2000 (Free People in Free Arrangements - Counterpictures on the
Expo 2000)
Publisher: Projektwerkstatt Saasen
(I'm not sure whether this is really a commercial publisher,
because it wants to spend all the profit made with the printed
copies on the battle for a world without domination.)
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: Debian trademark
Hi, Thomas!
On Monday, 3. December 2001 23:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If you want to take a bunch of Debian packages and port them
> to windoze, feel free! All I ask is:
>
> 1) Don't call it GNU.
> 2) Don't call it Debian.
> 3) Don't use Debian resources for the effort.
Hmmm... as far as I understood, the Debian GNU/w32 port will be
a port that runs on any win32-compatible kernel, which could
also be the kernel of ReactOS, which is GPLed.
So maybe your problem is that the system will be incomplete,
because there are no plans yet to include the Reactos kernel.
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: How about a new section "[partially free]"?
(Arrgh, I simply pressed "Reply" again... :o( Sorry, Branden!)
Hi Branden!
I think I should rephrase where I see a problem:
IMHO, the DFSG serves for two purposes:
1. It determines what can be included into Debian. (If I
understand it right, [non-free] is not a part of Debian, but
something like an additional service ran by Debian)
2. However, it also determines what is considered "free" from
the Debian perspective.
Concerning purpose 1, I fully agree with your proposal, however
I think it messes up things when it comes to purpose 2.
Problem 1:
Your proposal may imply that invariant sections are something
free, if only they are short enough. You could change that
situation by clarifying that licenses, copyright notices,
invariant sections and so on, are not free although they are in
[main].
Problem 2:
Usually, the fact that a package makes it into [main] can be
seen as an indicator that its content, minus license document
and meta information, can be considered free. This will not work
anymore, if partially unmodifiable stuff is kept in main. So, do
you have an idea what could be the new mechanism a user could
use to check what is free and what is not?
On Monday, 3. December 2001 06:00, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:53:34AM +0100, Thomas Uwe
Gruettmueller wrote:
> > However, I don't think your proposal is sufficient: For
> > example, a manual that contains an invariant (and thus
> > unremovable) section stating: "Drink alcohol!" or "Satan
> > wants you!", this will pass your rules, because it is less
> > than 32KB, and propably less than 5% of the whole text.
> > However, this remark might render the manual unusable in a
> > primary school, because the house rules, or maybe some law,
> > might forbid such remarks in front of children.
>
> This type of argument opens a complete new can of worms that,
> frankly, I haven't the energy to deal with at present. If
> anyone shares your feelings on this subject I suggest you get
> together and draft a separate proposal which can be
> incorporated into whatever document my proposal ends up in.
> If some folks on this list get their way, that document may be
> /dev/null, though, so consider yourself warned. :)
I agree that the example was a bad choice as it might imply that
a Debian vendor is responsible for the content Debian compiles.
> A far more interesting hypothetical in my opinion would be
> some person including as invariant text in a package the
> source code enjoined by the United States Federal 2nd Circuit
> in the Universal v. Reimerdes case (a.k.a. MPAA v. 2600).
> That might put Debian in an interesting pickle, or maybe the
> package would just be shunted to non-us.
That surely is a better one.
> > If I have understood it right, you believe that the Emacs
> > manual is non-free,
>
> No, I have made no such statement. Please be careful.
Please apologize.
> > while others do not want it to be categorized like
> > that, and thus be put on the same level as stuff in
> > [non-free] that fails any rule of the DFSG, and comes with a
> > special permission for Debian.
> >
> > The idea I have in mind about the [non-free light] category
> > is that non-free-CDs that contain only packages that only
> > fail DFSG 2, 3 or 6 can still be copied verbatim. So the CD
> > as one big data chunk cannot become uncopyable.
>
> That may be something that the FSF would like to see; I am not
> certain that the corpus of Debian Developers shares that view.
> Speaking for myself, I am not sure that I do.
So, Debian is more fundamentalistic than the FSF? ;o) Cool :o)
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: How about a new section "[partially free]"?
Hi, Branden!
On Sunday, 2. December 2001 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:19:55AM +0100, Thomas Uwe
Gruettmueller wrote:
> > As I understand it, a package that makes it into [main]
> > complies to all points of the DFSG. However, your proposal
> > will allow packages that don't fully comply the DFSG to
> > enter [main], if the violation is not too grave. I consider
> > this inconsistent.
>
> Well, depends on what you mean by "comply". Under what I
> understand to be your interpretation of "comply", everything
> licensed under the GPL or LGPL would have to be removed from
> main because the text of these licensed is copyrighted and
> licensed under terms that forbid modification.
Generally, you are right. So some sort of clarification will be
necessary.
However, I don't think your proposal is sufficient: For example,
a manual that contains an invariant (and thus unremovable)
section stating: "Drink alcohol!" or "Satan wants you!", this
will pass your rules, because it is less than 32KB, and propably
less than 5% of the whole text. However, this remark might
render the manual unusable in a primary school, because the
house rules, or maybe some law, might forbid such remarks in
front of children.
I understand that the text of the license document cannot be
changed, because that is the way a license works.
I also understand that free works are accomplished with meta
information, that tell something about the legal status of the
work, e.g. authors, version history, maybe also a table that
indicates which line was written by whom, or a remark like
"Author X disclaims to be responsible for the content of derived
versions"... These things help users to trace back the legal
status of the work, if in doubt. Besides that, they are clearly
seperated from the work itself.
What I do not understand is why free works should be accompanied
with any non-free stuff other than the above, and still be
considered free.
> > So, as there are cases that fail the DFSG, but which are
> > also too valuable to be put into [non-free], why should they
> > not get a seperate, new category?
>
> I don't think this follows, for the reasons described above.
If I have understood it right, you believe that the Emacs manual
is non-free, while others do not want it to be categorized like
that, and thus be put on the same level as stuff in [non-free]
that fails any rule of the DFSG, and comes with a special
permission for Debian.
The idea I have in mind about the [non-free light] category is
that non-free-CDs that contain only packages that only fail DFSG
2, 3 or 6 can still be copied verbatim. So the CD as one big
data chunk cannot become uncopyable.
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: How about a new section "[partially free]"?
Hi, Branden!
On Sunday, 2. December 2001 06:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In my opinion, "Non-Abhorrent Non-Free Software" is a cause
> best undertaken by a project other than Debian.
I did not mean that there is any non-abhorrent non-free software.
As I understand it, a package that makes it into [main] complies
to all points of the DFSG. However, your proposal will allow
packages that don't fully comply the DFSG to enter [main], if
the violation is not too grave. I consider this inconsistent.
So, as there are cases that fail the DFSG, but which are also
too valuable to be put into [non-free], why should they not get
a seperate, new category?
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text
Hi Thomas!
On Sunday, 2. December 2001 04:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I thought there was general agreement that a proportional
> limit was better than a simple number. One disadvantage to a
> simple per-package limit is that you can defeat it by
> splitting something up into more packages. A proportional
> limit seems more sensible to me.
If you split the Emacs Manual into two pieces, each of them will
carry the whole invariant section. But generally, you are right.
If the author himself wants to exploit this rule, he can do it
this way. BTW: You could also circumvent a proportional limit by
increasing the non-invariant part with garbage text.
I consider the proposal dangerous, because it leads to the
assumption that invariant stuff is free, if accomplished with
enough modifiable stuff. I can't agree on that.
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
How about a new section "[partially free]"?
Hi, Debian people!
I think that maybe manuals that only fail DFSG 2, 3 or 6 -- such
as the Emacs Manual -- should not be classified as "[non-free]",
but as something new, between [main] and [non-free], because,
although they are not entirely free, they are at least freely
redistributable by everyone, which is better than nothing.
Of course, such packages would still not be legitimate and
should be detected by something like vrms (although the name
doesn't seem to fit anymore for this expanded functionality. How
about "vbr"?;o) )
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: If your're a music lover and u like trance, then go here for the portal.
Warning: I am not a lawyer.
Hi.
On Sunday, 23. September 2001 13:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.geocities.com/goldshroom2000/Trance_links.html
All the links point to copyrighted material. As I cannot find
any license, I assume it violates any point of the DFSG. As
there is no permission to redistribute, the content cannot even
go into [non-free].
BTW: Has Debian any special policies on packaging multimedia
stuff?
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: selfhtml license + trademark violation
Obligatory statement first: I am not a lawyer.
Hi!
I think I should post the entire "license", so that the problem
will be more clear...
http://www.teamone.de/selfhtml/taa.htm#a4
|
| Copyright
|
| This document is *freeware* in the meaning of the Software
| License Law¹. The rules in detail:
|
| o Copying and distribution of the document are allowed.
|
| o Publishing on WWW servers, online services or "mailboxes"
| (BBS) is allowed.
|
| o Publishing on physical electronic media such as CD-ROMs is
| allowed, even if these media are commercially oriented.²
|
| o Changing the document is not allowed.³ This applies on the
| content as well as the file format. Also, removing unbeloved
| passages is not allowed. Only exception: The file
| wselfhtm.css in the directory of SELFHTML may be edited for
| personal purposes (see ->below). Before distribution, the
| original form of this file has to be reconstructed.
|
| o Literal adoption of single text passages into other projects
| is allowed¹¹ in form of a quotation. The quotation has to
| name the document source clearly. The reference should
| contain the document title (SELFHTML) and its WWW adress
| http://www.teamone.de/selfhtml/
|
| o Always, the document has to be copied, distributed or
| otherwise published in its given form and comletely --
| copying, distributing or publishing parts of the document is
| not allowed.¹²
|
| o Publishing the document on a WWW-server or physical
| electronic media together with illegal pornographic material
| or nazi ideas¹³ is not tolerated and will be juristically
| prosecuted as soon as discovered.
|
(translated by T.U.G.)
Annotations:
¹) I have never heard of a law called "Software License Law". If
it exists, how can it be that I can't find anything about it on
the web?
²) The latter remark seems superfluous. As I interpret it, it
implies "publishing" on a commercially oriented web server is
not intended.
³) If this is supposed to be a license, this remark is
superfluous. Unless the license states that changing is allowed,
it remains forbidden, anyway.
¹¹) The reusability of the text installed here, reminds slightly
of free software. Was this intended?
¹²) To me, this seems to be a contradiction to the clause before.
¹³) This seems to be the most dangerous clause. Does Debian even
check, though packages might contain "nazi ideas" or material
that is considered illegal and pornographic in some country?
AFAIK Debian has no such policy, so what happens if there
actually *are* tittis in Debian??? (However, I don't think this
clause is enforcable at all.)
On Tuesday, 4. September 2001 17:47, Uwe Hermann wrote:
>> Therefore I think selfhtml cannot go into main.
How could it get in there?
> The file tbcf.htm in the selfhtml Debian package lacks the
> following 3 lines:
...
> This is because there's a lawsuit going on in Germany about a
> trademark violation of the name 'Explorer' by a company called
> Symicron GmbH.
> But this change IMHO violates the selfhtml license
> So what can we do?
>
> * Contact the upstream author of selfhtml and ask if he
> allows us to remove those three lines?
IIRC he gave permission to everyone to remove the lines in
question. However, I can't find any evidence for that.
Maybe you should contact the upstream author anyway, and tell
him that the classification was [main], but will be corrected to
[non-free], if the document can stay in Debian at all. It would
be great if he could review the "license".
Since he doesn't write this tutorial for money, it would be also
interesting to know why he keeps it non-free at all. Of course,
it is his decision after all, but maybe he is just not aware of
the problem. Maybe he cannot even make it entirely free at all,
without raising problems with his paper book publisher.
> * As a special permission for Debian, we are allowed to
> change links. Maybe we could re-add the three lines and just
> change the name of the link from 'FTP Explorer' to 'FTP '
> or something, so that it doesn't violate the trademark?
If there was any violation at all, it was not Selfhtml that has
violated the trademark but the strange shareware program behind
the link. However, as the court has decided that "Explorer" is a
weak name, and "FTP Explorer" is different enough not to violate
it, there should be no problem anymore.
The reason the lawsuit is still going on is that the campaign
"Freedom for Links", and the Selfhtml author want a decision
from court, though web page authors are legally resposible for
the content behind the links they make.
> * Remove selfhtml from Debian altogether?
NO! Please try to avoid it! Selfhtml is a really great
hypertextbook. :o)
The Explorer stuff does not seem to be an exclusion reason to
me, anyway, however, the strange nazi-titti-clause does.
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: mplayer / divx
Hi
On Wednesday, 29. August 2001 20:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> However, I think Debian policy is to discourage
> the use of non-us for that purpose, since it was only really
> supposed to be for crypto stuff.
The stuff in non-us can be used inside and outside the US. It
only mustn't be exported from the US, and therefore it mustn't
be hosted on US FTP-servers.
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: Selling CDs...
(Sorry, Edmund. I just pressed REPLY, but did not check the
address :o( ...)
Hi.
On Saturday, 25. August 2001 10:01, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Please note that I am not a lawyer and I am not speaking on
> behalf of Debian.
Sure.
> > When I understand the stuff on http://cdimages.debian.org
> > correctly, Debian suggests to sell also incomplete sets of
> > the official CDs, e.g. only Binary-1. If it is really
> > possible to sell Binary-only-CDs, how does it relate to the
> > GPL??? And does this rule only apply to the official CDs or
> > also to e.g. a developer snapshot of woody?
>
> (1) If you're distributing an official CD and Debian suggested
> that you can do this, then you probably don't have to worry:
> just tell people that you're acting as an agent for Debian and
> refer them to www.debian.org.
However, according to section 3b, GPL, I would still have to
give my customers a written offer that Debian will offer the
source code for three years, right?
> > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to
> > the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This
> > alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution
> > and only if you received the program in object code or
> > executable form with such an offer, in accord with
> > Subsection b above.)
I have just bought 6 binary-CDs (a woody snapshot) for approx.
12$. However, I did not get a written offer to also get the
corresponding sources on CD. So, if I understand the GPL right,
o I cannot copy and distribute these CDs at all, not even for a
friend, at no cost.
o Even if I had such written offer, I could not copy and
distribute these CDs commercially (e.g. also 12$ for all).
> (3) Of course, not all the stuff in Binary-1 is GPL.
Sure...
BTW: On the official CDs, is all corresponding source code of
binary-n on source-n, for n=1,2,3...?
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Selling CDs...
Hi
When I understand the stuff on http://cdimages.debian.org
correctly, Debian suggests to sell also incomplete sets of the
official CDs, e.g. only Binary-1. If it is really possible to
sell Binary-only-CDs, how does it relate to the GPL??? And does
this rule only apply to the official CDs or also to e.g. a
developer snapshot of woody?
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Re: LinuxLand's strange copyright notices
Hi
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001, LinuxLand / Hans-Jörg Ehren wrote:
> That copyright only reflects to packaging, artwork etc. The content
> ist still free software, no question.
That sounds OK.
> > Another strange thing is the impressum in the manual shipped with
> > the CDs, saying:
> >
> > The content of this work stands under the GNU General Public
> > License (see appendix) and is freely available. All other
> > rights reseved, also those of photo-mechanic reproduction and
> > storing in electronic media.
>
> The same applies as above.
Does this mean that only the cover pictures must not be
photo-mechanically reproduced or stored in electronic media?
> Unfortunately publishers has to copyright their products for
> protection against misuse.
What do you consider "misuse"?
> German copyright enables us to do so,
> whatever the content is or comes from.
In Germany, there is no law called "copyright law", but several
other, that together do almost the same, e.g. "creators rights law"
(Urheberrechtsgesetz) or "publishers rights law" (Verlagsrecht).
I cannot find any clue that publishers can claim rights based on the
creators rights law. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Further, I also cannot find anything like that in the publishers
rights law. As I understand it, it only describes how a contract
between an author and a publisher has to look like. E.g. the
publisher has to get exclusive rights, which is not the case, when
someone has only non-exclusive rights (by the GPL) on making copies,
and publishes on his own initiative.
However, IANAL. I just try to understand how these things work.
BTW: I wonder why the book comes without it's source code. A disk
containig the sources would possibly be too complicated to include
into the book, but a written offer or download location printed into
the book should be no problem.
Also, I wonder why the post script version of the book, included on
the LinuxLand CD 1, is not also available as TeX sources.
Thanks for your answer.
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
Trackers Public License
Hi, folks! This is not really Debian related, but nevertheless, please have a look at the license draft below. Word explaination: A tracker is a raster sequencer program with a built-in sample-based synthesizer, or the user of such a program. A sample is a digital sound recording. The score to play and the samples are usually packed together into one big file called module. Some thoughts: The TPL has no warranty disclaimer. Instead, it enforces a warranty on not violating copyrights. The license is not valid for the whole module file, but only for the score parts. So, although the score of a module might be TPLed, the entire module file might be completely non-free. The license does not explicitly allow to copy verbatim on any media with or without a fee (violates DFSG §1). The license allows derived works, but, literally read, it enforces their redistribution. Derived works for ones personal use are not allowed (violates DFSG §6). Also, this license is too narrow, as it only applies to tracker modules. Derived works are not neccessarily tracker modules, but MP3s or MIDI files. There are restrictions on public performance (violates DFSG §6). The license has no termination clause ;o) Bye, Thomas - - - - - http://www.gaos.org/freemusic/tpl-0.0.2.txt";> Trackers Public License (TPL) Version 0.02 by Sven Windisch, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] -= Preface =- Any public license, given for Software, has its biggest interest on showing, that the Software, distributed under this license, is given with absolutely no warranty. Rather than this, a public license for music should define Copyrights for the musician, who composes a tracked piece of music, the musician, who wants to remix that piece and for the audience, which wants to hear it and maybe wants to copy it for its own use or for friends or as a gift. We have to distinguish between the samples and the work, with which the samples were put together. A note about the origin of the samples is indisputable, so every tracker has to give the audience knowledge about the origin of the samples they are hearing. The tracking-process itself is not so complicated, because it's clear, that this comes from the author of the piece of music. If you want to know more about the Copyright around tracked music look at: http://www.united-trackers.org/resources/copyright/ I hope that this TPL will show, that the right for free information research, claimed in every democracy of the world, is worth to be realized. 20th August 2000, Sven Windisch -= Chapter I =- Downloading, Saving, Hearing The Download of this piece oft tracked music is free. This means, that you can download it without any fear of violating copyrights. You can save it on your Harddisk or on any other place you want to save it. BUT ONLY FOR YOUR OWN USE ! (For public use see Ch. III) And of course you, and only you, can hear it as often as you want. -= Chapter II =- Changing, Remixing You may change or remix the Track as you want, as long as you make a note of the Name of the Author of the original and of the changes you made.You have to redistribute your remix under the TPL (See HowTo). Otherway it's not allowed to change or remix it. -= Chapter III =- Public performance You are allowed to perform this piece of music to the public, as long as you remark the Author. If you want to perform any remix or sth. that relates to the original you have to remark the Name of the Author of the original and the Name of the piece of music you want to perform. -= HowTo =- What to do, if I want to distribute my tracked music under the TPL? First of all, it's necessary, that this is really YOUR piece of tracked music. If there's any violation of any law, it's not allowed to distribute this music under the TPL. Then you have to give a remark of the origin of the samples you used, along with the track. You have to mark your track with your name (artist name is enough) and an adress, where the audience can reach you (e-mail adress is recommended). A very important point is, to make clear, that this piece of tracked music is distributed under the TPL, so you should remark it on a place, it could be seen. Then you have to distribute it on a place where mostly everyone interested could get it for free. (Internet should be the first place)
Free Digital Artwork Guidelines
Hi, debian legal list! In these days, there was a discussion about free fonts on this list, so I guess this fits here: I would like to start a free music project, and therefore maybe adopt the DFSG as a point to start from. The only problem I see is that in some cases, the enforcement of source code redistribution can be harassing. Please tell me what you think about it. Bye, Thomas - - - - - Annotations to | The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) concerning free digital artwork, maybe for the purpose of creating "Free Digital Artwork Guidelines" | 1. Free Redistribution | | The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party | from selling or giving away the software as a component of an | aggregate software distribution containing programs from several | different sources. The license may not require a royalty or | other fee for such sale. This is obviously the most important point. | 2. Source Code | | The program must include source code, and must allow | distribution in source code as well as compiled form. With audio recordings and pixel graphics, the problem is that the source code, the uncompressed multi track recording or multi layer image is several times larger than the compiled and compressed form. Imagine, anyone who shares MP3 files would be required also to provide two data CDs source code for each MP3. Today, this would be unenforcable. However, providing the source code of artwork is always a nice gesture. The size problem mentioned above does not apply to any kind of art (e.g. not to fonts or music scores), so in these cases, source code must be provided. | 3. Derived Works | | The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must | allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license | of the original software. OK | 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code | | The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in | modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of | "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying | the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit | distribution of software built from modified source code. The | license may require derived works to carry a different name or | version number from the original software. (This is a | compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to | restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) Naming rules are ugly, because they create license incompatiblity. A better way to achieve integrity, as shown in the GFDL, is to add a non free, but easily removable endorsement, that a version is "official" or authorized by the author. The endorsement must be removed in changed versions. | 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups | | The license must not discriminate against any person or group of | persons. | | 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor | | The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the | program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not | restrict the program from being used in a business, or from | being used for genetic research. Violations(3) to these points(2) can easily occur with politically motivated stuff(1). To avoid that(->3), the author should take the "official"-label technique into concideration. | 7. Distribution of License | | The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the | program is redistributed without the need for execution of an | additional license by those parties. OK | 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian | | The rights attached to the program must not depend on the | program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is | extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but | otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties | to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights | as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. (I think this point is ambigous, because of point 1, 5, 6 and 7.) | 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software | | The license must not place restrictions on other software that | is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, | the license must not insist that all other programs distributed | on the same medium must be free software. This can be annoying for the user, because he has to read through any file. To have free and non free stuff on the same media, can be a technical neccessety, but why should a free license not demand that there is no non free data in the same directory, file or audio track? | 10. Example Licenses | | The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of | licenses that we consider "free". With the source code size problem mentioned above, there maybe is no acceptable free art license, yet.
Re: web2ldap -- cgi and standalone web server that allows browsing and editing LDAP
Hi
On Don, 21 Dez 2000, Eric Sherrill wrote:
> Clause 5. fails DFSG 5.
Right. Also clause 10
"By clicking on the "ACCEPT" button where indicated, or by
installing, copying or otherwise using(!) the Software, Licensee
agrees(!) to be bound by the terms and conditions of this License
Agreement."
is a contradiction to
"The act of running the Program is not restricted" (§0, GPL)
and
"You are not required to accept this License" (§5, GPL)
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
Atari (was: License considerations)
Hi
On Mit, 20 Dez 2000, John Galt wrote:
> There is one more thing to consider. That's the use of common
> sense. Something for an 8-bit Atari that is copyright 1989?! The
> 8-bit Ataris were long out of production in 1989.
I remember that there were Atari XEs with an ST-like design in stores
around 1991 or 92.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
OT: Re: plain language disclaimer
On Fre, 15 Dez 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, PHYSICAL LAW > (INLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO OHM'S LAW, SPECIAL RELATIVITY, > GENERAL RELATIVITY AND SOD'S LAW), ORDINARY LOGIC WITH OR WITHOUT That would be invalid because the theory of relativity is not a physical law :oP
LinuxLand's strange copyright notices
Hi, debian-legal list!
Some months ago, I have bought a Debian distribution from a German
company called LinuxLand. Now I've noticed some strange things about
it:
The six official CDs are labelled as suggested by Debian, however,
there is a strange third line:
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 r0 >>Potato<<
Official i386 Binary-1 (2814)
(C) 2000 LinuxLand International
What does that mean? Is it illegal to copy these CDs or what?
Another strange thing is the impressum in the manual shipped with the
CDs, saying:
The content of this work stands under the GNU General Public
License (see appendix) and is freely available. All other rights
reseved, also those of photo-mechanic reproduction and storing in
electronic media.
I do not understand that. To me, this notice seems to be a
contradiction. How can something be under the GPL while copying is
restricted?
The book mentioned is a German translation of the Debian GNU/Linux
Guide by John Goerzen and Ossama Othman, however, the layout differs
completely. It cannot be found online, however the printed version
can be ordered at:
http://www.linuxland.de/katalog/01_linuxdistri_bs/debian/3_debian22buch/framify
Bye,
Thomas
}:o{#
