XBRL XML schema
Can someone take a look at these docs at [1] and let me know if the XML schemas that are distributed by XBRL International can be redistributed in a Debian compatible way? It doesn't look like the documents can be modified, but I cannot tell if that applies to the schemas as well. [1]http://www.xbrl.org/legal/ Thanks, wt -- Warren Turkal (w00t) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sphinx 4
Is the license[1] for sphinx4 DFSG compliant? wt [1] http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/sphinx4/license.terms -- Warren Turkal Consultant, Penguin Techs http://www.penguintechs.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free
On Monday 04 April 2005 04:12 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:35:10AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote:
> If you wish to be copied on replies to Debian lists, please set your
> Mail-Followup-To header to indicate this, instead of asking everyone
> else to adjust headers manually. :)
Hopefully, it is on now.
> The text in question (for archival and quoting purposes) is:
>
> "The GPL license allows you to extend SQL-Ledger and distribute the
> "Larger Work". This does NOT mean, that you can remove or alter the
> copyright, nor remove or alter the SQL-Ledger logo. You must give the
> "Larger Work" a different name, but must include "Powered by SQL-Ledger"
> in the product name or subtitle. (e.g. XYZ Accounting, Powered by
> SQL-Ledger). In addition, you need to acknowledge the SQL-Ledger
> trademark and copyright ("SQL-Ledger â is a registered trademark of DWS
> Systems Inc. Copyright  DWS Systems Inc. All rights reserved.").
>
> If you do not want to display the SQL-Ledger logo, the "powered by", or
> the trademark and copyright notice, you need to obtain explicit
> permission from DWS."
>
>
> You're correct; this text has no connection to the GPL, which says no
> such things; it's just a collection of false statements. This puts the
> software in an uncertain state: on one hand, they're giving permissions
> (the GPL), and on the other, they're saying you don't have them. Either
> this page is not legally binding, and we do have the permissions of the
> GPL, or it is, and they're being contradictory (in which case the work
> is probably not safe to distribute at all).
>
> Of course, Debian both tends to take the safe option in this type
> situation, as well as tries to honor the author's desires as closely as
> possible; both of these imply that Debian shouldn't be distributing this
> software.
I wholly agree with this result. Should a bug be filed with a link to this
thread?
> As an aside, in this type of case, I have a hard time figuring out what
> these people were thinking. One speculation is that they wanted to use
> some third- party GPL code, but also want to apply those restrictions. (In
> that case, they're probably violating the GPL.) Another would be that they
> want the publicity from releasing under the GPL, but don't actually want to
> release under the GPL. Finally, they might just be confused, and actually
> believe the GPL says what they say it does, though I'd have a hard time
> believing that.
I think that they wanna get their name attached to open source but still
monopolize the service value adds. Check out the other provisions on that
page like you can't register a domain with sql-ledger in it unless you link
to http://www.sql-ledger.com/ and have the logo on it. What if I wanna make a
website like sql-ledger-sucks.com in which I make a list of reasons I don't
like it and have a version of the logo that is modified to incorporate that
idea. I think that they are trying to prevent negative publicity like that.
> (Also curious: their trademark license requires acknowledgement of a
> copyright; "SQL-Ledger â is a trademark of DWS Systems Inc. Copyright  DWS
> Systems Inc. All rights reserved.", even for uses of the trademark
> independent of any copyrighted work. Huh?)
> You might try to convince them to fix up their licensing, but I'd have no
> idea where to start. :) Somebody else on this list might have some ideas;
> alternatively, you could ask the FSF for help--I'd expect that reducing
> incorrect, confusing claims about what the GPL means is something they'd
> be very interested in.
I am not interested in pursuing it with them. I was reading lwn.net and looked
at their website and noticed this info. I think it should definitely be
removed from Sarge unless this is resolved.
wt
--
Warren Turkal
Consultant, Penguin Techs
http://www.penguintechs.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sql-ledger may belong in non-free
I am not subscribed to this list. Please CC if you need me to reply. I was reading through the Terms & Conditions[1] (henceforth Terms page) on the and I am not sure that it conforms to the DFSG, specifically section 3. If you look at the Terms page, you will notice that the section on "Extending and Re-branding SQL-Ledger" indicates that the GPL only allow the derivative work to be a "Larger Work" and that you cannot remove the SQL-Ledger logo as a result. First of all, the GPL doesn't seem to even contain the word "larger." Any mention of a derivative work indicates that you can make any change. By their interpretation, I think it is clear that I would not be able to take their database schema and base a new software project on that unless I (A) included all of the SQL-Ledger code in my project (cannot freely make modifications), (B) changed the project's name, (C) maintain the SQL-Ledger logo (again, cannot free make modification), and (D) advertise SQL-Ledger by including "Powered by SQL-Ledger" in a subtitle for the program. (A) might be able to be exchanged with having a project with more source code than SQL-Ledger in order to make it a "larger work." Also, on their website in the same section, they state, "If you do not want to display the SQL-Ledger logo, the 'powered by', or the trademark and copyright notice, you need to obtain explicit permission from DWS." This violates section 7. This info is not contained in the tarball of the distribution as far as I can tell. Of course, IANAL and may be entirely wrong about some or all of this interpretation. Thanks, wt [1] http://www.sql-ledger.org/cgi-bin/nav.pl?page=misc/terms.html&title=Terms%20%26%20Conditions -- Warren Turkal Consultant, Penguin Techs http://www.penguintechs.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subversion in main?
Subversion has some clauses in its license that seemed very questionable to me. Here they are for your convenience: 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by CollabNet (http://www.Collab.Net/)." Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. 4. The hosted project names must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am probably just paranoid, but I wanted to know if these are acceptable. BTW, I am not on the mailing list, so please CC replies. Thanks, wt -- Warren Turkal President, GOLUM, Inc. http://www.golum.org
about the vovida license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If you reply to my message, please CC me as I am not a subscriber to the list. http://www.vovida.com/About/license.html - -- Warren GPG Fingerprint: 30C8 BDF1 B133 14CB 832F 2C5D 99A1 A19F 559D 9E88 GPG Public Key @ http://www.cbu.edu/~wturkal/wturkal.gpg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8beW/maGhn1WdnogRAtNsAJ42GFJKnlX+oBACwvaW9Xy+QIamrACdEBcf 8Wxdz430EpGy215biwyiinU= =PlAF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
license evaluation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Does the following liscense fall under the Debian Social Contract such that it could be distributed in main? If not, how could this package be distributed with Debian? http://www.vovida.com/About/license.html - -- Warren GPG Fingerprint: 30C8 BDF1 B133 14CB 832F 2C5D 99A1 A19F 559D 9E88 GPG Public Key @ http://www.cbu.edu/~wturkal/wturkal.gpg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8beVamaGhn1WdnogRAl8hAJ0ex9dCSJvcsqfZ1924hU4mLevUTQCfQFO9 Fb4clFonUNseNBpxljitMl8= =yn/u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
