[DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
I'm preparing a package and would like to hear if this licence (author's voice) is DSFG free. I intend to add this to debian/copyright: License: The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are free for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer applications will usually be granted free of charge, but contact the author for confirmation. Notes: (*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, commercial users are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and algorithms deployed before this date. Also in what section would this software go: main, non-free? Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
License: The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are free for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer applications will usually be granted free of charge, but contact the author for confirmation. Notes: (*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, commercial users are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and algorithms deployed before this date. Is it possible to take something that had been put in the public domain (ie copyright-less) and put a copyright and a license on it controling its use ? JC Helary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
Jari Aalto said on Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:04:32AM +0200,: > I'm preparing a package and would like to hear if this licence > (author's voice) is DSFG free. I intend to add this to > debian/copyright: > > License: > > The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are free > for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer > applications will usually be granted free of charge, but contact the > author for confirmation. Imposing restrictions on users for re-distribution does not comply with the DFSG. What is `commercial use', BTW? Does a LUG selling CDs containing this application engage in a commercial activity? Fails the ``desert island test'' too. (What if the distributor wants to give a copy of the application on a commercial basis to somebody else on the island?) > > Notes: > > (*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public > domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, > commercial users I am not sure how this possible. Once public domain, always public domain. No idea if the law in your jurisdiction is different. > are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and > algorithms deployed before this date. > > Also in what section would this software go: main, non-free? -- Mahesh T. Pai || http://paivakil.blogspot.com Encryption: A powerful algorithmic encoding technique employed in the creation of computer manuals. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:04:32AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > I'm preparing a package and would like to hear if this licence > (author's voice) is DSFG free. I intend to add this to > debian/copyright: > License: > The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are free > for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer > applications will usually be granted free of charge, but contact the > author for confirmation. Certainly not; this is a clear use restriction. > Notes: > (*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public > domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, commercial users > are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and > algorithms deployed before this date. > Also in what section would this software go: main, non-free? This seems to be the same question as the one you asked above? Perhaps you meant to ask first whether it's ok for Debian to distribute it. Anyway, I don't see anything in this license that constitutes permission to redistribute; given that the author apparently also doesn't know what "public domain" means, I certainly wouldn't rely on perceived implicit permission to redistribute the code when putting it into non-free. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:19:45PM +0900, JC Helary wrote: > >License: > > > >The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are > >free > >for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer > >applications will usually be granted free of charge, but > >contact the > >author for confirmation. > > > >Notes: > > > >(*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public > >domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, > >commercial users > >are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow > >code and > >algorithms deployed before this date. > > Is it possible to take something that had been put in the public > domain (ie copyright-less) and put a copyright and a license on it > controling its use ? I don't think so. However, after releasing the work into the public domain, he can refrain from releasing further modifications. So, if you can find a copy of the program from before this date, or if you can take code from today and remove any changes made after it, it's in the public domain. (The latter is, of course, very difficult.) It sounds like he's saying: "if you deployed before this date, then you can still use today's version commercially". It sounds like an attempt to be fair to people who had already deployed and were depending on the software, so as not to "bait and switch". Of course, a license that doesn't allow commercial use is non-free. (Algorithms are not subject to copyright, though.) IANAL. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:04:32AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > >> I'm preparing a package and would like to hear if this licence >> (author's voice) is DSFG free. I intend to add this to >> debian/copyright: > >> License: > >> The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are free >> for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer >> applications will usually be granted free of charge, but contact the >> author for confirmation. > > Certainly not; this is a clear use restriction. > >> Notes: > >> (*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public >> domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, commercial users >> are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and >> algorithms deployed before this date. > >> Also in what section would this software go: main, non-free? > > This seems to be the same question as the one you asked above? Perhaps you > meant to ask first whether it's ok for Debian to distribute it. Yes, this was the intention of the second question. > Anyway, I don't see anything in this license that constitutes > permission to redistribute; given that the author apparently also > doesn't know what "public domain" means, I certainly wouldn't rely > on perceived implicit permission to redistribute the code when > putting it into non-free. So the correct procedure, in order to submit the package to Debian, is to get the Author to agree with a licence that's in par with DSFG. I'll see what I can do. Btw, is DSFG close to OSI approved or are there list somewhere that describes the difference? Thanks, Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
Jari Aalto said on Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:08:19PM +0200,: > Btw, is DSFG close to OSI approved or are there list somewhere that > describes the difference? DFSG applies to software, `OSI-approved' relates to licenses. A package under a OSI approved licence *may* not be DFSG free if, for example, it includes a procedure which implemnts an actively enforced patent; or depends on a non-free software (eg. for compliation). -- Mahesh T. Pai || http://paivakil.blogspot.com Half knowledge is worse than ignorance. --Thomas B. Macaulay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:12:31PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > Jari Aalto said on Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:08:19PM +0200,: > > > Btw, is DSFG close to OSI approved or are there list somewhere that > > describes the difference? > > DFSG applies to software, `OSI-approved' relates to licenses. A > package under a OSI approved licence *may* not be DFSG free if, for > example, it includes a procedure which implemnts an actively enforced > patent; or depends on a non-free software (eg. for compliation). Er. DFSG applies to the restrictions in effect on a piece of software. Most of the time, that means the same thing: the license. In practice, there are many licenses that are OSI-approved but are not DFSG-free, because the OSD and the DFSG are interpreted by widely different groups of people, with different goals and principles. (The interpretation isn't even close. As I understand it, OSI uses the OSD as a literal set of rules--a "definition", which is in stark contrast to Debian's use of the DFSG as a set of guidelines.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DSFG] question: Custom hand written notice
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:08:19PM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > >> Notes: > >> (*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public > >> domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, commercial users > >> are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and > >> algorithms deployed before this date. > >> Also in what section would this software go: main, non-free? > > This seems to be the same question as the one you asked above? Perhaps you > > meant to ask first whether it's ok for Debian to distribute it. > Yes, this was the intention of the second question. > > Anyway, I don't see anything in this license that constitutes > > permission to redistribute; given that the author apparently also > > doesn't know what "public domain" means, I certainly wouldn't rely > > on perceived implicit permission to redistribute the code when > > putting it into non-free. > So the correct procedure, in order to submit the package to Debian, is > to get the Author to agree with a licence that's in par with DSFG. I'll > see what I can do. If you want it to be in main, it needs to be available under terms that meet the DFSG. If you just want it to be distributed from Debian ftp servers, a license that permits redistribution is sufficient; there's plenty of other "non-commercial use only" software that we distribute in non-free. > Btw, is DSFG close to OSI approved or are there list somewhere that > describes the difference? The Open Source Definition is based on the DFSG, but is applied very differently by the OSI. If you're going to recommend a license to an upstream in order to achieve DFSG compliance, it's usually easiest to go with either the GPL or X11/MIT depending on the goals of your upstream -- but given that your upstream has recently *withdrawn* various permissions that are required for Debian main, I don't know how much luck you'll have in getting them to again agree to a more permissive license. :) Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
