Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-29 Thread Eugen Dedu 
Hi,

We have a bug report,
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
of various plugins of opal package, and I do not know if the licenses
involved are DFSG-free.  Could you please tell me if these plugins are
allowed to be in debian main?

Thank you,
-- 
Eugen Dedu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-29 Thread Giacomo A. Catenazzi 

Eugen Dedu wrote:

Hi,

We have a bug report,
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
of various plugins of opal package, and I do not know if the licenses
involved are DFSG-free.  Could you please tell me if these plugins are
allowed to be in debian main?


The main license:

-
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin

Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.

As a matter of courtesy, the authors request to be informed about uses
this software has found, about bugs in this software, and about any
improvements that may be of general interest.

Berlin, 28.11.1994
Jutta Degener
Carsten Bormann
-


I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the
"any use" doesn't include distribution of software.
For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributable,

It seems that the author intention was to interpret the "any use" in
a wider manner, but this is not legally safe for us.

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-29 Thread Ben Finney 
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"  writes:

> -
> Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
> Technische Universitaet Berlin
>
> Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
> removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
> are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
> software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
> this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.

The lawyerbomb “any use of this software” needs to be clarified. I agree
with Giacomo that, at best, this fails DFSG§1 and DFSG§3 since it does
not grant permission to redistribute under the same terms.

The first run-on sentence, somehow entangling a disclaimer with license,
would not be out of place in the usual legalese document, but well-known
free software license texts demonstrate that one can be clear without
such contortions.

> As a matter of courtesy, the authors request to be informed about uses
> this software has found, about bugs in this software, and about any
> improvements that may be of general interest.
>
> Berlin, 28.11.1994
> Jutta Degener
> Carsten Bormann

It's not clear, but this text seems to be outside the terms and
conditions of the license, and hence is neutral.

> -

[…]

> It seems that the author intention was to interpret the "any use" in a
> wider manner, but this is not legally safe for us.

I would recommend liaising with upstream to request they re-license the
work under well-understood free software terms, instead of custom
non-free terms. Probably the best fit to their apparent intention is the
terms of the Expat license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>.

-- 
 \“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love |
  `\   not freedom, but license.” —John Milton |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-29 Thread MJ Ray 
cate wrote:
> Eugen Dedu wrote:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
> I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the
> "any use" doesn't include distribution of software.
> For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributable,
> 
> It seems that the author intention was to interpret the "any use" in
> a wider manner, but this is not legally safe for us.

I'd agree with that unless someone can tell me why not.  I think
there's case law about "use" not including distribution.  Ideally,
suggest that the licensor uses some well-understood terms like the
modified BSD or the MIT/Expat ones.

Also, please note that software can satisfy the DFSG, rather than
licences.  It is confusing to ask whether licences "are" DFSG because
clearly they are not guidelines.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-29 Thread Florian Weimer 
* MJ Ray:

> cate wrote:
>> Eugen Dedu wrote:
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
>> I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the
>> "any use" doesn't include distribution of software.
>> For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributable,
>> 
>> It seems that the author intention was to interpret the "any use" in
>> a wider manner, but this is not legally safe for us.
>
> I'd agree with that unless someone can tell me why not.

Surprise, surprise---it does include distribution:

|  oOo
| 
| Since the original terms of 15 years ago maybe do not make our
| intentions completely clear given today's refined usage of the legal
| terms, we append this additional permission:
| 
|   Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
|   for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted,
|   provided that this notice is not removed and that neither
|   the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin are
|   deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability
|   of this software for any purpose nor are held responsible
|   for any defects of this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
|   WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.
| 
| Berkeley/Bremen, 05.04.2009
| Jutta Degener
| Carsten Bormann

Just downloaded from .

("Use" in German copyright law refers to exploitation of the
copyright.  Reading a book is not considered "use".)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-30 Thread Giacomo A. Catenazzi 

Florian Weimer wrote:

* MJ Ray:


cate wrote:

Eugen Dedu wrote:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses

I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the
"any use" doesn't include distribution of software.
For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributable,

It seems that the author intention was to interpret the "any use" in
a wider manner, but this is not legally safe for us.

I'd agree with that unless someone can tell me why not.


Surprise, surprise---it does include distribution:


ok, good! So IMHO (IANAL) the license is free according DFSG.

Unfortunately this statement was not in the original bug report.

The other licenses in bug report seems OK, but also this time I read only
the bug report + responses: I've not looked in the sources

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Bug#532456: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-30 Thread Ben Finney 
Eugen Dedu  writes:

> We have a bug report,
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
> of various plugins of opal package, and I do not know if the licenses
> involved are DFSG-free.

Coming back to the start of this thread, it's been pointed out before
that *licenses* are not judged against the DFSG; a particular software
*work* is so judged. For that, we need to know the full set of
applicable license terms on the software.

It seems that this information hasn't yet been provided, since multiple
“licenses” have been presented so far in this thread.

> Could you please tell me if these plugins are allowed to be in debian
> main?

To help with this, please paste here in this thread the set of license
terms for the software work, so that its effect on the freedom of that
work can be discussed in context.

-- 
 \   “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think |
  `\   so, Brain, but ‘apply North Pole’ to what?” —_Pinky and The |
_o__)   Brain_ |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Bug#532456: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-30 Thread Eugen Dedu 
Ben Finney wrote:
> Eugen Dedu  writes:
> 
>> We have a bug report,
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
>> of various plugins of opal package, and I do not know if the licenses
>> involved are DFSG-free.
> 
> Coming back to the start of this thread, it's been pointed out before
> that *licenses* are not judged against the DFSG; a particular software
> *work* is so judged. For that, we need to know the full set of
> applicable license terms on the software.
> 
> It seems that this information hasn't yet been provided, since multiple
> “licenses” have been presented so far in this thread.
> 
>> Could you please tell me if these plugins are allowed to be in debian
>> main?
> 
> To help with this, please paste here in this thread the set of license
> terms for the software work, so that its effect on the freedom of that
> work can be discussed in context.

Hello,

Well, opal is a library with MPL license, as shown in its files and by
the fact that mpl-1.0.htm is found in its root directory
(http://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/opalvoip/opal/trunk/).  It
comes with plugins (see "plugins" directory at the same URL), and these
plugins seem to me to have various licenses.  For example, iLBC *codec*
has a limited commercial use
(http://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/opalvoip/opal/trunk/plugins/audio/iLBC/ilbccodec.c?revision=22678&view=markup,
line 369) license (while its *source code* is MPL) and because of that
it has been stripped from opal in debian (I hope this is the right
decision).  I need to know what should I do with the other plugins: are
they for debian main or not?

I hope I answered your question, please tell me if not.

Cheers,
-- 
Eugen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Bug#532456: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-30 Thread Ben Finney 
(No need to send copies to me; this is a Debian list, so you should
assume by default that each poster reads your reply via the list.)

Eugen Dedu  writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > To help with this, please paste here in this thread the set of
> > license terms for the software work, so that its effect on the
> > freedom of that work can be discussed in context.
>
> […] I need to know what should I do with the other plugins: are they
> for debian main or not?
>
> I hope I answered your question, please tell me if not.

Please post here the actual text of the license terms, and briefly tell
us what terms apply to which parts of the work. That way, the terms can
be discussed in context, and the discussion in the archive is thus
independent of whether the license text document later is available at
the same URL.

-- 
 \   “Nothing is so common as to imitate one's enemies, and to use |
  `\   their weapons.” —Voltaire, _Dictionnaire Philosophique_ |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Bug#532456: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-11-10 Thread Eugen Dedu 
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Eugen Dedu
>  wrote:
> 
>> snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/GSM0610$ more COPYRIGHT
>> Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
>> Technische Universitaet Berlin
>>
>> Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
>> removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
>> are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
>> software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
>> this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.
> 
> No permissions to modify and distribute modified versions under the
> same license. I imagine it was intended to be free software, but was
> written in an age when men were men and wrote their own broken
> licenses. A better license would be the MIT/Expat license or maybe the
> BSD license.

I feel this is not a problem, since it's debian's gsm package which gets
used, sorry.

>> G726:
>>  * This source code is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided
>>  * for unrestricted use.  Users may copy or modify this source code without
>>  * charge.
>>  *
>>  * SUN SOURCE CODE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND
>> INCLUDING
>>  * THE WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>>  * PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.
>>  *
>>  * Sun source code is provided with no support and without any
>> obligation on
>>  * the part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,
>>  * modification or enhancement.
>>  *
>>  * SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
>>  * INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY THIS
>> SOFTWARE
>>  * OR ANY PART THEREOF.
>>  *
>>  * In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue
>>  * or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if
>>  * Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
> 
> No permissions to distribute modified or unmodified versions under the
> same license. I imagine it was intended to be free software, but was
> written in an age when men were men and wrote their own broken
> licenses. A better license would be the MIT/Expat license or maybe the
> BSD license.

So could it be in debian main or not?

>> LPC_10: I do not see any license in src sub-directory.
> 
> Worrying, but maybe OK if you can find out if the author meant it to
> be under the same license as the rest of the source package.

Well, the last release is from 1996, and there is no mention of
copyright in all these files.
(http://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/opalvoip/opal/trunk/plugins/audio/LPC_10/src/)

>> Speex: snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/Speex$ more COPYING
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> are met:
>>
>> - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>
>> - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>
>> - Neither the name of the Xiph.org Foundation nor the names of its
>> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
>> this software without specific prior written permission.
>>
>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
>> ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
>> A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FOUNDATION OR
>> CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
>> EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
>> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
>> PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
>> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
>> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
>> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> 
> Basically the 3-clause BSD license, DFSG-free.
> 
> Please get upstream to strip that out of the source package and depend
> on the external speex library (see Debian Policy 4.13). You should
> notify the security team about the embedded code copy here too.

I suppose they prefer to have it upstream because it opal is
multi-platform and they need it for audio echo cancellation.

Anyway, the opal debian package uses system speex library, so everything
is ok I suppose.

>> gsm-amr: snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/gsm-amr/src$ more
>> amrcodec.txt
>> This plugin implements an interface to the AMR-NB codec for OpenH323.
>>
>> For licensi

Re: Bug#532456: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-11-10 Thread Paul Wise 
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Eugen Dedu
 wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Eugen Dedu
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/GSM0610$ more COPYRIGHT
>>> Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
>>> Technische Universitaet Berlin
>>>
>>> Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
>>> removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
>>> are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
>>> software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
>>> this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.
>>
>> No permissions to modify and distribute modified versions under the
>> same license. I imagine it was intended to be free software, but was
>> written in an age when men were men and wrote their own broken
>> licenses. A better license would be the MIT/Expat license or maybe the
>> BSD license.
>
> I feel this is not a problem, since it's debian's gsm package which gets
> used, sorry.

If Debian's gsm package has the same license, it is also technically
in violation of the license and the DFSG.

>>> G726:
>>>  * This source code is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided
>>>  * for unrestricted use.  Users may copy or modify this source code without
>>>  * charge.
>>>  *
>>>  * SUN SOURCE CODE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND
>>> INCLUDING
>>>  * THE WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>>>  * PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.
>>>  *
>>>  * Sun source code is provided with no support and without any
>>> obligation on
>>>  * the part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,
>>>  * modification or enhancement.
>>>  *
>>>  * SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
>>>  * INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY THIS
>>> SOFTWARE
>>>  * OR ANY PART THEREOF.
>>>  *
>>>  * In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue
>>>  * or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if
>>>  * Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
>>
>> No permissions to distribute modified or unmodified versions under the
>> same license. I imagine it was intended to be free software, but was
>> written in an age when men were men and wrote their own broken
>> licenses. A better license would be the MIT/Expat license or maybe the
>> BSD license.
>
> So could it be in debian main or not?

No, see the DFSG.

>>> LPC_10: I do not see any license in src sub-directory.
>>
>> Worrying, but maybe OK if you can find out if the author meant it to
>> be under the same license as the rest of the source package.
>
> Well, the last release is from 1996, and there is no mention of
> copyright in all these files.
> (http://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/opalvoip/opal/trunk/plugins/audio/LPC_10/src/)

Unfortunately copyright happens by default. If LPC_10 is written by
the same people as the other parts of opal, then it might be
reasonable to assume LPC_10 is under the same license as the rest of
opal. In any case the situation needs upstream clarification.

>>> gsm-amr: snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/gsm-amr/src$ more
>>> amrcodec.txt
>>> This plugin implements an interface to the AMR-NB codec for OpenH323.
>>>
>>> For licensing reasons, the amr codec itself is not distributed with this
>>> plugin. Instead, you must download it yourself from
>>> http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/26_series/26.104/26104-610.zip
>>>
>>> Unzip that file, and unzip the file 26104-610_ANSI_C_source_code.zip within
>>> it into this directory.
>>
>> You might like to point upstream at this free implementation of AMR-NB:
>>
>> http://packages.debian.org/sid/libopencore-amrnb-dev
>>
>> There is also an AMR-WB implementation:
>>
>> http://packages.debian.org/sid/libopencore-amrwb-dev
>>
>> Please make sure they don't add it as an embedded code copy.
>
> The same as above: I suppose they prefer to have it upstream because it
> opal is multi-platform and they need it for audio echo cancellation.
> Morover, they do not want to bother with licenses.
>
> Anyway, this is a good point.  I was using amr from upstream instead of
> debian's one, I will change that.
>
> Conclusion:
> - I build with amr from debian (does it have features removed because of
> license or is it identical to upstream?)

libopencore-amrnb-dev is a reimplementation, IIRC it isn't derived
from the 3GPP AMR.

> - gdm0610, speex and amr code from upstream will not get used, so no
> problem here

GSM0610 code needs to be removed from the tarball, it is non-free.

Same for the AMR-NB code.

speex code should really be removed from the tarball by upstream,
embedded code copies are bad for all distributions, not just Debian.
If upstream isn't willing to do so, since you'll need to repack the
tarball

Re: Re: Bug#532456: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-11-10 Thread Eugen Dedu 
> (No need to send copies to me; this is a Debian list, so you should
> assume by default that each poster reads your reply via the list.)
> 
> Eugen Dedu  writes:
> 
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>> > To help with this, please paste here in this thread the set of
>> > license terms for the software work, so that its effect on the
>> > freedom of that work can be discussed in context.
>>
>> […] I need to know what should I do with the other plugins: are they
>> for debian main or not?
>>
>> I hope I answered your question, please tell me if not.
> 
> Please post here the actual text of the license terms, and briefly tell
> us what terms apply to which parts of the work. That way, the terms can
> be discussed in context, and the discussion in the archive is thus
> independent of whether the license text document later is available at
> the same URL.

Sorry for the delay, I have missed this e-mail.

===
Abstract: The opal source package has several plugins inside.  These
plugins have been written by various people, and use different
standards.  We have spotted the license of each plugin/standard and we
would like to know if their licenses are suitable to their inclusion in
the main distribution.
===

The text of the license terms are given as comment #10, at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456#10 .  I put it
here too, for each plugin involved:

GSM0610: the COPYRIGHT file is:

snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/GSM0610$ more COPYRIGHT
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin

Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.

As a matter of courtesy, the authors request to be informed about uses
this software has found, about bugs in this software, and about any
improvements that may be of general interest.

Berlin, 28.11.1994
Jutta Degener
Carsten Bormann



G726:
 * This source code is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided
 * for unrestricted use.  Users may copy or modify this source code without
 * charge.
 *
 * SUN SOURCE CODE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND
INCLUDING
 * THE WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
 * PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.
 *
 * Sun source code is provided with no support and without any
obligation on
 * the part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,
 * modification or enhancement.
 *
 * SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
 * INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY THIS
SOFTWARE
 * OR ANY PART THEREOF.
 *
 * In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue
 * or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if
 * Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
 *
 * Sun Microsystems, Inc.
 * 2550 Garcia Avenue
 * Mountain View, California  94043



LPC_10: I do not see any license in src sub-directory.



Speex: snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/Speex$ more COPYING
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

- Neither the name of the Xiph.org Foundation nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FOUNDATION OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

===
gsm-amr: snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/gsm-amr/src$ more
amrcodec.txt
This plugin implements an interface to the AMR-NB codec for OpenH323.

For licen

Re: Re: Bug#532456: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-11-10 Thread Paul Wise 
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Eugen Dedu
 wrote:

> snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/GSM0610$ more COPYRIGHT
> Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
> Technische Universitaet Berlin
>
> Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
> removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
> are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
> software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
> this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.

No permissions to modify and distribute modified versions under the
same license. I imagine it was intended to be free software, but was
written in an age when men were men and wrote their own broken
licenses. A better license would be the MIT/Expat license or maybe the
BSD license.

> G726:
>  * This source code is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided
>  * for unrestricted use.  Users may copy or modify this source code without
>  * charge.
>  *
>  * SUN SOURCE CODE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND
> INCLUDING
>  * THE WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>  * PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.
>  *
>  * Sun source code is provided with no support and without any
> obligation on
>  * the part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,
>  * modification or enhancement.
>  *
>  * SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
>  * INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY THIS
> SOFTWARE
>  * OR ANY PART THEREOF.
>  *
>  * In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue
>  * or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if
>  * Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

No permissions to distribute modified or unmodified versions under the
same license. I imagine it was intended to be free software, but was
written in an age when men were men and wrote their own broken
licenses. A better license would be the MIT/Expat license or maybe the
BSD license.

> LPC_10: I do not see any license in src sub-directory.

Worrying, but maybe OK if you can find out if the author meant it to
be under the same license as the rest of the source package.

> Speex: snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/Speex$ more COPYING
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
>
> - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> - Neither the name of the Xiph.org Foundation nor the names of its
> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
> this software without specific prior written permission.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
> A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FOUNDATION OR
> CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
> PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Basically the 3-clause BSD license, DFSG-free.

Please get upstream to strip that out of the source package and depend
on the external speex library (see Debian Policy 4.13). You should
notify the security team about the embedded code copy here too.

> gsm-amr: snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/gsm-amr/src$ more
> amrcodec.txt
> This plugin implements an interface to the AMR-NB codec for OpenH323.
>
> For licensing reasons, the amr codec itself is not distributed with this
> plugin. Instead, you must download it yourself from
> http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/26_series/26.104/26104-610.zip
>
> Unzip that file, and unzip the file 26104-610_ANSI_C_source_code.zip within
> it into this directory.

You might like to point upstream at this free implementation of AMR-NB:

http://packages.debian.org/sid/libopencore-amrnb-dev

There is also an AMR-WB implementation:

http://packages.debian.org/sid/libopencore-amrwb-dev

Please make sure they don't add it as an embedded code copy.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d

opencore amr license, was: Bug#532456: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-11-11 Thread Reinhard Tartler 
Paul Wise  writes:

>> Conclusion:
>> - I build with amr from debian (does it have features removed because of
>> license or is it identical to upstream?)
>
> libopencore-amrnb-dev is a reimplementation, IIRC it isn't derived
> from the 3GPP AMR.

see the thread following this post:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/90934

for your convinience, the relevant mail here:

From: Alex Converse  gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] the future of libamr
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel
Date: 2009-05-19 19:10:03 GMT (25 weeks, 14 hours and 37 minutes ago)

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Martin Storsjö  martin.st> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2009, Alex Converse wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Diego Biurrun >  biurrun.de> wrote:
>> > Now that OpenCORE AMR support is just around the corner, what about
>> > libamr?  I'm in favor of removing support for it.  It's nonfree and
>> > it's
>> > crap and we have a free replacement.
>> >
>>
>> Is opencore AMR really free? A lot of the files admit that they are
>> derived from the reference source. I suppose it's not as egregious as
>> the opencore AAC decoder where packet video just slaps their
>> copyright
>> notice right above Dolby's.
>
> IANAL, but at least the opencore/NOTICE file says this:
>
> ---
> Portions of this file are derived from the following 3GPP standard:
>
>3GPP TS 26.073
>ANSI-C code for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) speech codec
>Available from http://www.3gpp.org
>
> (C) 2004, 3GPP Organizational Partners (ARIB, ATIS, CCSA, ETSI, TTA,
> TTC)
> Permission to distribute, modify and use this file under the standard
> license
> terms listed above has been obtained from the copyright holder.
> ---
>
> (And a similar one for AMR-WB.)
>
> So as far as I can tell, PacketVideo has the right to license these
> files
> under the apache license.
>
> // Martin

Looks ok then. Their AAC stuff is scarier because it lacks the
"Permission to distribute, modify and use this file under the standard
license terms listed above has been obtained from the copyright holder"
bit.


-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org