Re: issues with the AGPL
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 20:32:10 MJ Ray wrote: Here the scenario becomes impossible IMO - if Z is truly a bad actor, Z will always either find a way to withhold their source code or develop on an alternative A's application. AGPL may hinder Z, but would not prevent it. I hesitate to highlight the loopholes, but I think they've been posted here before. I'm for full-disclosure of loopholes. I've posted about one before: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00061.html The kernel is: ... ironically, if there is an AGPLv3 work that already has the give-remote-users-source-code feature and I'm making modifications to the work, I'm obligated to keep that feature there, unless I remove it. There are other weaknesses ripe for exploitation by someone who really doesn't want to follow the spirit of the license. This is true of most licenses, including the GPL (even v3), but I think the AGPL is particularly weak (at least the A part is). -- Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
On Saturday 07 February 2009 06:21:55 Colin Turner wrote: ... the code is so astonishingly trivial ... Given this, why not just take 10 minutes and reimplement it? -- Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Upstream violates GNU GPL?
On Monday 15 December 2008 11:48:58 Sergei Golovan wrote: So the questions are: Are my suspicions correct, and ejabberd upstream indeed violates GNU GPL, or am I wrong? If they are then which is the best action to do (Should we continue to distribute ejabberd and therefore promote it? Should I contact FSF with this question?)? Just a comment: if the upstream authors actually own all the copyrights (e.g. there are no 3rd-party contributors), they can legally release any sort of binaries, etc, even if no one else can. However, even if this is the case, releasing artifacts without source in this manner is bad form. As far as Debian is concerned, we don't use the binary installer, we use the source. So I don't think this is a Debian issue, and I don't think Debian should care what other things the upstream is doing. But I think it's a Free and Open Source Software Community issue and members of that community (including individuals involved with Debian) ought to work with upstream to help them acknowledge and rectifty the situation. -- Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GNU Free Documentation License v1.3
On Monday 03 November 2008 10:28:39 Simon Josefsson wrote: I expect the GFDLv1.3 license will be used by several projects soon. Thoughts on its DFSG-status? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html According to the FSF FAQ, the main change is that it allows certain GFDL-licensed wiki's to relicense. It otherwise isn't really any different. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository
On Sunday 22 June 2008 12:08:30 Adam Majer wrote: AFAIK, we do not distribute things, we distribute *software*. Some packages are just composed of data though, but other packages depend on it. Some is just data that is very useful in the *Debian* project. This includes the keyring. Certainly, the backports.org keyring is useful to some people, *but* it is, 1. not free software Actually, how are debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring free-software, anyway? Do I get source code for the all GPG keys they contain? The /usr/share/doc/debian-keyring/copyright even says The keys in the keyrings don't fall under any copyright. Ops! Maybe there are other reasons, but let's not pretend we're keeping debian-backports-keyring out because it's not free software. (Personally, I think all keyrings are fine.) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Final text of AGPL v3
(I wrote this message 2007-11-19 and somehow it ended up stuck unsent in an error mail-queue during a network-outage. I wasn't goign to resend since this thread is now old, but I didn't see anyone make the same points, so here it is...) On Monday 19 November 2007 22:26:21 Francesco Poli wrote: Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) [...] This restriction compels whoever runs the modified version of the Program to [...] Keep in mind, this only applies 1) if you modify the Program *and* 2) you do something with the program that would normally be restricted by copyright. Here is an example: Say I receive a pristine AGPLv3 program. The person who gave it to me had to obey the terms of the AGPLv3 in order to distribute it to me, but I don't have to accept it just to receive and run the program. I modify it (say to remove the capability of getting source code) and run it on my own computer, allowing remote users to interact with it. Assuming the output sent to the users is *not* a derived work (e.g. no AGPLv3 HTML templates, etc), there is no reason why I need any copyright license at all. Thus, I don't need to provide source code to my users. On the other hand, if I modified it, but left in the feature of the software to allow remote users to get the source code, now I *would* be obligated follow the terms of the AGPLv3, because I'm now distributing a modified version. So ironically, if there is an AGPLv3 work that already has the give-remote-users-source-code feature and I'm making modifications to the work, I'm obligated to keep that feature there, unless I remove it. I'm personally a fan of the GPLv3, but the AGPLv3 is quite weak in practice since it's very easy to work around for many kinds of programs[1]. [1] Again, assuming that the normal output of the program is not a derived work of the program itself. This obviously doesn't apply to *all* AGPLv3 programs. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: rescuing code from the GPL
On Sunday 11 November 2007 08:55:51 Shriramana Sharma wrote: The question is not whether a work *includes* parts of Qt or not. The very fact that it is dependent on Qt for its functioning makes it a derivative work, and it *must* be licensed under the GPL when distributed, whether in source form or compiled form. #include some_library does not make my C++ source code a derivative work of some_library. If I write source code that uses a library, that does not make the source code a dervitive of the library. I am under absolutely no obligation to follow the license of the library, whatever it may be, if I don't distribute it. I can release my own source code -- no matter what that source code theoretically describes -- under any license I want, as I am the sole copyright holder. Now, if I compile my program, and link it against a library, the resulting binary is (in most circumstances) a derivative work of both the library and my source code. Now, if I want to distribute this result, I've got to follow the license of the library, as I have created a derivitive work. For example, I can write completely proprietary[1] programs that use Qt. I can distribute the source code under any license I want. Others that I gave/sold my source code to could compile and use my proprietary program with GPL Qt. But I (and they) can't distribute a precompiled binary of my program as it (in most circumstances) would be a derivative work of Qt. To give some context: sometimes [often?] the problem that distributors (like Debian) have is that a given program may be completely free software as distributed upstream -- all of the program code and libraries it uses are free software independently, but because of license incompatibilities, binaries end up being undistributable because they are derivitive works of several licenses with incompatible requirements. Footnotes: [1] Or BSD, or GPLv3, or Apache, or ... -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: rescuing code from the GPL
On Saturday 10 November 2007 08:48:22 Shriramana Sharma wrote: My question is whether anyone among X, Y and Z in any of the below two situations is guilty of copyright infringement as a result of not following license conditions? SITUATION #1: 1. X creates 01-noqt-nothirdvar.cpp and distributes it under the BSDL only. Okay... 2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating 02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL. Well, they could distribute the source code under the BSD, as the source code isn't a derivative work of Qt just by using it. But they could not legally distribute a compiled binary that included copyrightable parts of GPL-only Qt. You could distribute binaries under the GPL. 3. Z modifies this program to use a third variable for swapping, creating 03-qt-thirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL. Again, they could distribute source under BSD, but not compiled binaries linked with GPL-only Qt. You could distribute binaries only under the GPL, because you have to respect Qt's license. 4. X imports the change from Z, namely using a third variable only, into his codebase, creating 04-noqt-thirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under the BSDL only. Sure, now the code doesn't use any GPL code, so you could distribute source or binaries under the BSD. SITUATION #2: 1. X creates 01-noqt-nothirdvar.cpp and distributes it under the BSDL only. Okay ... 2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL) and to use a third variable for swapping, creating 03-qt-thirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL. Same as above -- you could distribute the source under the BSD, but not binaries. You could distribute binaries only under the GPL, because you have to respect Qt's license. 3. X imports one change from Y, namely using a third variable only, into his codebase, creating 04-noqt-thirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under the BSDL only. Again, now there is no GPL code, so you could distribute source or binaries under the BSD. There seems very straightforward and obvious. Is there something different that you were expecting? For one thing, this has nothing to do with rescuing code from the GPL -- the only reason you could remove references to Qt and get back a BSD work is because all of the intermediate steps included dual-licensed code. Here is a more likely scenerio, and maybe this is what you really want to know: 1. X creates 01-noqt-nothirdvar.cpp and distributes it under the BSD only. 2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL) and to use a third variable for swapping, creating 03-qt-thirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under the GPL, only. 3. X wants to import one change from Y, namely using a third variable only, into his codebase, creating 04-noqt-thirdvar.cpp, and distribute it under the BSD, but he *can't*[1], because that change is licensed under the GPL only, by Y. So he either calls Y and asks if he can use that part of the change under the BSD, or he rewrites the function himself so that there is no GPL code involved. So basically, no, you can't free something from the GPL (or any license, really), unless you: 1) Get the author to re/dual-license their code, or 2) Rewrite all of the offending code. Footnotes: [1] Glossing over how this example trivial change is not copyrightable anyway. I'm assuming as you probably are that this whole thing is an analogy for much more major changes. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GPL 3 and derivatives
On Monday 05 November 2007 05:51:20 Shriramana Sharma wrote: Please point out to me where in the forest of the GPL 3 liveth that animal called the requirement of derivative works to be distributed under the same license? Is there some specific thing you think the GPLv3 allows that most people don't? Or is the some specific thnig you think the GPLv3 doesn't allow, that most people do? Anyway, I don't know what you are quoting, but for conveying modified source, see section 5.c, which starts: You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. GPL v3 does not at all have the word derivative. Apparently this is an attempt at making the GPL less dependent on the US legal system, which is a good thing ok but I can hardly read this text. Some survey should be conducted to determine as to what exact percentage of people taking advantage of the GPL actually understand it, at whatever version. The word based on seems to refers to modified forms of the same work and not derivative works. You don't have to say magic words like derivative to talk about derivative works in a license. Most licenses don't, in fact, they usually just talk about modification, changes, etc. In the context of section 5, a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code, yes, this not all derivative works, it's only a specific kind of derivative work. The kind that is source code, i.e. the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For all non-source kinds of derivative works, see section 6. These sections use terms like source code and object code which are defined quite clearly in section 1. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: SIM-IM uses default ICQ sounds
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 03:20:20 Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 9/11/07, Joseph Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do sounds count as trademarks? If so, this likely is one. There are audio trademarks, yes, although this may not be one. However, audio is definitely copyrightable, so even if it isn't a trademark it may very well be a copyright violation. FWIW, that uh-oh sound had been one of those silly things going around the internet long before ICQ ever existed; ICQ just grabbed it and used it[1]. I'm not sure anyone really knows what the source is. But if you are really concerned, record yourself saying uh-oh and speed it way up[2] with audacity. Problem solved. =) [1] Apparently; I never checked the md5sums or anything. [2] Maybe this is what ICQ did. Who knows? -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: JFTP icon freeness (Was: A license question)
On Sunday 09 September 2007 10:22:55 Kumar Appaiah wrote: Could you please comment on whether this license is DFSG compliant or not? I am actually packaging JFTP, and it uses some small GIF images released like this: COPYRIGHT: All images and icons Copyright(C) 1998 Dean S. Jones readme: This is a quick page to preview the icons I am creating for some of my Java(TM) programs. You are free to use them in your programs, but I am retaining Copyright, and they can not be used in any books, CD-ROM's, Web pages, or any other form of image collection without my consent. I [...] Even without looking at the DFSG, it's pretty clear it's not free if they can not be used in any books, CD-ROM's, Web pages, or any other form of image collection without [the author's] consent. But specifically, this seems to pretty obviously fail DFSG #1, #3, and #6. #1 - specifically it disallows image collections #3 - doesn't allow--or even imply--that derived works are allowed #6 - the icons can only be used in programs, not in e.g. books [...] It'd be sad if this license discounts JFTP from entering main, but I wanted your view for sure. Looking at JFTP, it looks like this only applies to some of the icons, not all of them. The easiest thing to do might be to ask the author to please relicense the icons under a free software license. If that doesn't work, you could always just replace the icons in question with free ones, e.g. from a different free program, from OpenClipart, from KDE or GNOME, etc. There is no dearth of good freely licensed icons out there. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GPL V2 and GPLv3
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:12:56 Peter S Galbraith wrote: Tatsuya Kinoshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that even if distribution of *.elc file should be licensed under GPLv3, *.el file under non-GPLv3 can be distributed, because locally installation and byte-compilation are not limited by GPLv3. I disagree. It's not simply about byte-compilation. The simplest packages usually `require' (or `load') some elisp file from Emacs. That's bascally the same as linking. However Emacs and it's many libraries are not licensed under the LGPL, but under the GPL. An .el source code file doing a 'require' or 'load' does not make the source code a derived work. It's like an #include ... statement in C source code. Compiling it might make a derived work, but it's not a derived work just because it mentions the name of a file it's asking a compiler to include when executed. Anyway, you could possibly argue either way if the .elc file is make a derived work by linking to emacs. But the .el file by itself is unquestionably not a derived work and could be under any license at all. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
On Sunday 03 June 2007 09:05:05 Francesco Poli wrote: On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:38:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the Preample: The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. Section 0. of the GNU GPL *v2* states, in part: | 0. This License applies to any program or other work [...] | ^ | The Program, below, refers to any such program or work [...] | ^^^ I think even the GNU GPL *v2* was designed with the applicability to non-program works in mind. It was certainly designed *primarily* for programs, but also in such a way to be applicable to any work of authorship. At least, that's my understanding after reading the license text so many times... True, but it does seem that that the [draft] GPLv3 features this a bit more prominently (first line in the preamble, more clear in the definitions, some of the non-source conveying options are less ambiguous now with non-program works, etc). Anyway, not that it particularly matters——GPLv2 in practice already works pretty well for almost all non-program works——it was mostly just an interesting observation. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as something involving the transfer of money. If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right (the right not to distribute any source) which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. And what about societies without money? fee does NOT equal money. Your common knowledge is not my understanding ... Okay, now I'm really curious. Exactly which societies without money are you talking about? -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
On Saturday 02 June 2007 19:05:16 Ben Finney wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship (not only computer programs), I once again suggest using a more neutral term than the Program. Something like the Work would avoid misleading many many people into thinking that the GPL can only be applied to computer programs. [...] I agree that the GPL is the best FSF license to be applied to any work of authorship, but the FSF don't agree -- and I believe they expressed this disagreement long before they started promoting other licenses designed for non-program works. Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the Preample: The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. And, the license is is *very* generic in it's definitions of Program and Source, but still, they used the works Program and Source. And they apparently believe that documentation is not part of other kinds of works, hence the GFDL[1]. [1] Which IMO is mostly benign, but still pointless. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote: The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation. (I assume you meant GFDL here instead of DFSG.) It's stretching quite a bit to call it consensus, but anyway, given that the GPL and other good Free Software licenses can work perfectly fine for both software and documentation, there isn't much reason IMO to use the GFDL. I would personally recommend just using the GPL, or if you must use the GFDL for compatibility with something, dual-licensing both GFDL and GPL. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: CC Sampling Plus 1.0
On Saturday 19 May 2007 14:03:37 Miriam Ruiz wrote: Would you think the license CC Sampling Plus 1.0 from Creative Commons would be DFSG-Free? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/legalcode * Re-creativity permitted. You may create and reproduce Derivative Works, provided that: 1.the Derivative Work(s) constitute a good-faith partial or recombined usage employing sampling, collage, mash-up, or other comparable artistic technique, whether now known or hereafter devised, that is highly transformative of the original, as appropriate to the medium, genre, and market niche; and 2.Your Derivative Work(s) must only make a partial use of the original Work, or if You choose to use the original Work as a whole, You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. In the case of a musical Work and/or audio recording, the mere synchronization (synching) of the Work with a moving image shall not be considered a transformation of the Work into something substantially different. I'm no DFSG-nazi, but these seem pretty cut-and-dried non-free. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpvgk8otcuyd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Remakes of older games
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 16:07:04 Francesco Poli wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:44:41 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote: I've already talked to upstream and they're licensing them under GPL, so no problem about the license. Well, it must be seen *if* upstream actually have the right to license them under the GNU GPL... Looking at the actual games on the actual site, I see no reason to doubt them any more than any other software released under the GPL. If the remake copies copyrighted elements from the other game (characters, story/plot, dialogs, or, worse, graphics/sounds), then I ^^ Remember that as ideas, stories and plots are never copyrightable. Particular *expressions* of them are. So wholesale copying of story or plot from a game (or book, or movie or whatever) with all it's nuances would indeed make a derivative work, but just having the same general story or plot would not. The same is true of characters, with some caveats. Obviously copied dialog, graphics, or sound from a non-free source would be a problem. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpimoVXJdUCC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote: Mmmmh, does the following exception constitute an additional restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2? | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the | Software in a physical product must provide you the right to | access and modify the source code for the Software and to | reinstall that modified version of the Software in object code | form on the same physical product on which you received it. If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional restrictions). What do other debian-legal contributors think? This makes it GPL incompatible, but I think it's still DFSG free. The GPL says: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. So if you redistribute the Program, you may not impose any further restrictions. Obviously others, like Debian, could not add additional restrictions. However, assuming RedHat is not using parts of GPL software in their fonts, they are free to add addition restrictions the their originally licensed software--as they copyright holders, they can use any license they want. So if they say their fonts are GPL+restriction, the fonts are NOT GPL compatible, but as long as the restriction itself is DFSG free, the work as a whole should be fine. The restriction they've added itself is very GPLv3-esque, so I don't see why it wouldn't be DFSG free[1]. [1] Cue someone who will point out a billion reasons why they think similar clauses in GPLv3 drafts aren't DFSG. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpPTh5fpeTsl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a big debate about it. The OP is just going to have to decide, and if the upload the package, the ftp-masters will have to decide what they believe. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp8MoYXHvoMJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Request licence review
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 11:13:48 Andrew Sidwell wrote: Redistribution of unaltered copies of this document is permitted without restriction. Distribution of altered copies is permitted without restriction as long as the alteration does not significantly alter the content (For example, translation and conversion to another format is permitted.). Distribution of all other altered copies is permitted as long as credit for previous authors is maintained, the contact information is replaced with that of the alterer, and redistribution is not further restricted. With the third case (all other altered copies) which is what would apply if you start changing the manual, you've got to: 1) Maintain credit for previous authors. This is fine. Most free licenses, like the GPL, require you to keep the copyright notice as-is; this is even less restrictive. 2) Put your contact information. This is fine. Many free licenses, like the GPL, require you to mark altered copies with the date of modification; this is even less restrictive. 3) Don't add any further restrictions. This is fine. However, you can't further restrict things, so you basically have to use the same license. This is basically a (non-GPL compatible) form of copyleft. I'd just like to check if this is DFSG-free or not; I think it is, but since one of the reasons for making the code Free is so it can be included in Linux distributions and use services like SourceForge, I don't want to inadvertently introduce non-free stuff into the game. It's DFSG free, but it doesn't seem GPL compatible because of #3. I could see the documentation being under a different license as the code being slightly annoying, but not a DFSG problem. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpnLPUDzmOqw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 13:48, Don Armstrong wrote: The upstream maintainer. Whatever form(s) of the work the upstream maintainer actually uses to modify the work is the prefered form for modification. You keep saying this over and over, but it's just your opinion, not the way the license necessarily must be interpreted. The license doesn't say anything about the form that the *author* prefers. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpwGMgwUj1MC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#405441: ITP: smc -- A Jump and Run game like Super Mario World written in C++
On Thursday 04 January 2007 10:24, MJ Ray wrote: Sorry about the conditionals. I don't know Nintendo's work well enough to have a strong opinion whether or not smc's graphics infringe Nintendo's copyright. The images are certainly imitating Nintendo's Mario games, but according to the web site, all the artwork was drawn from scratch by the upstream in the Mario style and no images were copied from the Mario games themselves. I'll leave it up to other folks with more time on their hands to argue whether imitative-but-independently-created-artwork is problematic here or not. There are actually *many* conditionals, for instance: if the game was intended to be a parody, it would be almost unconditionally protected from any copyright infringement claim. (This is just an example--the game is obviously not a parody.) My opinion is that it would be a good idea to replace the artwork anyway (ideally, but not necessarily upstream), otherwise regardless of legality and how good the game is, it screams I am a cheap ripoff. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpzDctkRc2ql.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IEEE copyrighted files in vhdl tools
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 08:50, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote: This file is needed to use any vhdl compiling/simulation tool, and I've later noticed that ghdl [2], already accepted in Debian, contains more vhdl headers, and even body vhdl copyrighted files that are delivered as binary libraries, i.e. object files. I've filled a bug[3] trying to clarify ghdl situation too. So, in short, I'm not legally expert at all, and specially if the text is not in my native language, so I would like to know if somebody could help me to clarify the situation of: - uploading freehdl (with one vhdl header) to main (noticing the ieee copyrighted file in debian/copyright) - uploading it to non-free - how this can affect to ghdl, already in main and ready to be released with Etch. For GHDL, the IEEE VHDL body files should not be there--I didn't actually notice that until you filed a bug on it. They are compiled just to get consistent interfaces--the implementation in the body files is not actually used (e.g. numeric_std functions are implemented internally). So there is a problem here that I will fix. For the header files, they are not copyrightable as they just declare an interface. The comments are the only thing that could be copyrightable. But, I think I may just rewrite the whole set of headers to remove any doubt--this is a pretty trivial exercise. If FreeHDL only has one header and you are really worried about it, you might just want to rewrite it from scratch. (And no, unfortunately GHDL isn't going to be in etch no matter what, because of an unresolved bug in GNU ld on ia64 and now the freeze.) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpyzo1eWEPJX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: licensing of debian/ files
On Thursday 27 April 2006 05:41, Panu Kalliokoski wrote: When discussing a package with my sponsor, I thought about a licensing issue that has never occurred to me before. Debian packages are very careful to mention the license(s) and copyright(s) of the files in the upstream distribution, but where are the license conditions of files that the packager has added? The manual page (if added by the packager) usually gives something license-like in the author section, but what about the other stuff? The first rule of debian/ directory licensing is, we don't talk about debian/ directory licensing. ... =) Seriously though, I think this is something we as maintainers should be more clear about. I know in my packaging I always *intend* that my packaging falls under the same license as the code I'm packaging. But maybe it would be good to add this more specifically into the debian/copyright file: Original software, Copyright 200x Upstream Author Upstream license text + +Debian packaging, Copyright 200x Package Maintainer + Packaging license text What do other folks think? -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpYXdWlfCbh1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: compartibility of license of Wild Magic library with the Debian main and non-free repositories
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 15:48, Dominik Margraf wrote: I have come across with the Wild Magic library, which has its own license and has not been debianized to date. Here is the link to the license agreement: http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf It looks like that is has a qt4-like license style. Therefore would this license meet the requirements of the Debian main repository? Section 1.(c) seems to prevent you from taking the software as-is and selling it, which seems like it goes against DFSG #1, or at least is *very* borderline. If not, would it be possible to be uploaded to the non-free repository instead? The spirit of the license (especially given the heavy-handed preample) doesn't feel like main material to me. I think it's clearly distributable in non-free, however. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpgQ0OuipdLc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License of oui.txt file?
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 16:25, Uwe Hermann wrote: Hi all, I'm currently packaging a program which uses the oui.txt file from http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/index.shtml I know that some other programs in Debian have such a file, too (e.g. kismet, I think). However, I'm not sure if it can be used freely, I couldn't find a license statement or something. It's simply a list of facts, so it's not copyrightable. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpPGRhfX5oX0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote: There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant? Yeah, since the dissident test has nothing do to with the DFSG, except by quite a big a stretch of the imagination. Not to say it's not a valuable thought experiment in some cases, but it sure isn't the great canonical test that some people here seem to think it is. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpK0TpmXV6BB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: QPL and non-free
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 07:37, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the subject of my former email quite clearly states QPL? Then you do not need to worry, because the QPL is a free license. Readers should beware that Marco holds this opinion in known opposition to most other people on this list. Saying most other people is certainly an overstatement. I believe the license is free and complies with the DFSG, but it can be problematic when linked with software that has incompatible licenses. Readers should also note that the FSF believes[1] that the QPL is a free license; but it's not GPL compatible. [1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpH45jJCVH7Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL Compatibility of IFRIT License
On Wednesday, 15 September 2004 15:25, Mark Hymers wrote: On Wed, 15, Sep, 2004 at 09:54:24PM +0100, Mark Hymers spoke thus.. I'll take this up with upstream immediately and report back to debian-legal. Thanks for spotting this. Upstream has (very promptly, I must say) removed the clause from the website. Hope that solves all the problems with the IFRIT licenses. It's good that they did, but even if they didn't, the license in each file of the *actual software* has no such non-free clause. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgplcOwmzr1ZN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: please release sarge instead of removing binary firmware
On Friday 16 April 2004 7:01 am, Andreas Barth wrote: However, in the case like the NVidia driver (where Linus himself said that they are not derived), or also for some of the binary blobs, If you're referring to the post I'm thinking of, he didn't say they weren't derived. In fact, it sounds like he was a bit torn on the issue. Some quotes from http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/125: But what they do NOT have the right to do is to create derivative works of the kernel, and distribute them to others. That act of distribution is not essential _for_them_ to utilize the kernel program (while the act of _receiving_ the module and using it may be - so the recipient may well be in the clear). ... So in order for nVidia to be able to legally distribute a binary-only kernel module, they have to be able to feel damn sure that they can explain (in a court of law, if necessary) that the module isn't a derived work. Enough to convince a judge. That's really all that matters. Our blathering matters not at all. ... and ... And quite frankly, my largest reason for not complaining loudly has often been that I'm lazy, and in several cases of sme people using GPL'd work improperly I have been ready to join a lawsuit that somebody else initiates. So far people have tended to back down. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp8PFyDUyWZG.pgp Description: signature
