Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
Hi. Do we really need a copytight notice in /etc/motd? The only thing in Debian I see it's not made from individual packages are the Packages.gz file and the directory layout in ftp.debian.org and CD-ROMs, I don't think this is copyrightable. So: Does it really make any sense to copyright Debian as a "whole"? If not, I'm open for suggestion about what to put instead of the copyright notice. Thanks. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:38:43 +0100 (CET) From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: #56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated Package: base-files Version: 2.1.14 Severity: important /etc/motd still has the following copyright: Copyright (C) 1993-1999 Software in the Public Interest, and others This should be updated to include 2000. I've marked this as important to make sure it gets fixed in potato. Wichert. -- System Information Debian Release: potato Kernel Version: Linux tornado 2.2.14 #1 Fri Jan 14 00:07:35 CET 2000 i686 unknown Versions of the packages base-files depends on: ii base-passwd3.1.7 Debian Base System Password/Group Files ii gawk 3.0.4-2GNU awk, a pattern scanning and processing l ^^^ (Provides virtual package awk) --- Begin /etc/motd (modified conffile) Linux tornado 2.2.14 #1 Fri Jan 14 00:07:35 CET 2000 i686 unknown Copyright (C) 1993-1999 Software in the Public Interest, and others Most of the programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are freely redistributable; the exact distribution terms for each program should be described in the individual files in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright or /usr/doc/*/copyright. Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law. --- End /etc/motd --- Begin /etc/nsswitch.conf (modified conffile) # passwd: files # ldap group: files # ldap shadow: files # ldap hosts: files dns networks: files protocols: files [NOTFOUND=return] db services: files [NOTFOUND=return] db ethers: files [NOTFOUND=return] db rpc:files [NOTFOUND=return] db netgroup: [NOTFOUND=return] nis --- End /etc/nsswitch.conf -- "2e8af57463354c5076e62b53088bd944" (a truly random sig)
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
Santiago Vila wrote: > > Hi. > > Do we really need a copytight notice in /etc/motd? I think it is even misleading. The major parts of Debian are not by Debian or SPI, but by other folks like GNU and Linus. We should probably refer to the individual copyright notices instead. Marcus
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
On Jan 25, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I think it is even misleading. The major parts of Debian are not by
> Debian or SPI, but by other folks like GNU and Linus. We should
> probably refer to the individual copyright notices instead.
The remainder of /etc/motd implies this, by referring the reader to
/usr/share/doc/{$package}/copyright.
Perhaps a better phrasing would be:
Most of the programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system were
originally written by people outside the project, but are freely
redistributable; the authorship and exact distribution terms for each
program should be described in the individual files named
/usr/share/doc/*/copyright or /usr/doc/*/copyright.
In any event, U.S. law at least acknowledges the concept of a
"collection copyright." To cite another example: M$ claims copyright
for Windows, even though significant parts of Windows are copyrighted
at least in part by others (Intel [Defrag], UC-Berkeley [TCP/IP
networking commands], etc.) So I think we are well within our rights
to claim copyright over our work, which is in assembling and
maintaining the distribution as a whole.
Chris
--
=
|Chris Lawrence| The Linux/m68k FAQ |
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/faq.html |
| ||
| Open Directory Editor| Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: |
| http://dmoz.org/ | <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> |
=
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, you wrote: > In any event, U.S. law at least acknowledges the concept of a > "collection copyright." To cite another example: M$ claims copyright > for Windows, even though significant parts of Windows are copyrighted > at least in part by others (Intel [Defrag], UC-Berkeley [TCP/IP > networking commands], etc.) So I think we are well within our rights > to claim copyright over our work, which is in assembling and > maintaining the distribution as a whole. > Chris is right. Specifically, Section 102 of the U.S. Copyright act defines a compilation as: "...a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that is selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship..." Ronald L. Chichester Frohwitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 713-621-0703 (voice) 713-622-1624 (facsimile)
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Ronald L.Chichester wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, you wrote: > > In any event, U.S. law at least acknowledges the concept of a > > "collection copyright." To cite another example: M$ claims copyright > > for Windows, even though significant parts of Windows are copyrighted > > at least in part by others (Intel [Defrag], UC-Berkeley [TCP/IP > > networking commands], etc.) So I think we are well within our rights > > to claim copyright over our work, which is in assembling and > > maintaining the distribution as a whole. > > > > Chris is right. Specifically, Section 102 of the U.S. Copyright act defines a > compilation as: > > "...a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or > of data that is selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the > resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship..." Well, my question is more a "do we really want to claim ownership of it?" than a "do we really have the right to copyright Debian as a whole?". I remember that the Simtel archives were reorganized some time ago so that all the free software (including djgpp and the GNU software) was put out of the "collection" (of which Simtel claimed a "compilation copyright"). [ Maybe this was done upon RMS request, I don't know ]. Is claming ownership of Debian as a whole within the spirit of the free software world? -- "a51cd037e3bd899097b539e054268bdd" (a truly random sig)
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, you wrote: > Well, my question is more a "do we really want to claim ownership of it?" > than a "do we really have the right to copyright Debian as a whole?". > [Snip] > > Is claming ownership of Debian as a whole within the spirit of the free > software world? Under the Berne Convention (to which the U.S. is a signatory) there is no notice requirement as a condition to copyright protection. Essentially, the law tends to preserve your rights automatically on the assumption that you want to keep them. Thus, even though we don't place a notice on the tangible media, the Debian organization can still pursue copyright infringement actions (and other organizations and individuals would have to consider that). Consequently, the question is not whether we should or should not claim copyright ownership - Debian already has it as soon as the compilation is complete in a tangible media. What we should consider is our policy about copyright infringement and what Debian should state as its policy before the public, including, if necessary, publicly and affirmatively renouncing copyright protection. Ronald L. Chichester Frohwitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 713-621-0703 (voice) 713-622-1624 (facsimile)
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, you wrote: > Well, my question is more a "do we really want to claim ownership of it?"> > than a "do we really have the right to copyright Debian as a whole?". > [Snip] > > Is claming ownership of Debian as a whole within the spirit of the free > software world? Under the Berne Convention (to which the U.S. is a signatory) there is no notice requirement as a condition to copyright protection. Essentially, the law tends to preserve your rights automatically on the assumption that you want to keep them. Thus, even though we don't place a notice on the tangible media, the Debian organization can still pursue copyright infringement actions (and other organizations and individuals would have to consider that). Consequently, the question is not whether we should or should not claim copyright ownership - Debian already has it as soon as the compilation is complete in a tangible media. What we should consider is our policy about copyright infringement and what Debian should state as its policy before the public, including, if necessary, publicly and affirmatively renouncing copyright protection. Ronald L. Chichester Frohwitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 713-621-0703 (voice) 713-622-1624 (facsimile)
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
On Jan 25, Santiago Vila wrote: > Well, my question is more a "do we really want to claim ownership of it?" > than a "do we really have the right to copyright Debian as a whole?". > > I remember that the Simtel archives were reorganized some time ago so that > all the free software (including djgpp and the GNU software) was put out > of the "collection" (of which Simtel claimed a "compilation copyright"). > [ Maybe this was done upon RMS request, I don't know ]. > > Is claming ownership of Debian as a whole within the spirit of the free > software world? So long as we use a DFSG-compliant license for the distribution, I can't see a problem. There may be a weakness in that we don't have an explicit license for the distribution, though. In any case, SPI holds the copyright whether or not we announce it to the world or not (per discussion about the Berne Convention)... If we DO need a license for the distribution, something short and to the point (do whatever the hell you want with it, but don't sue us) seems reasonable enough; I like Branden's license for the X packages personally. === Copyright 1996-2000 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL SOFTWARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INC. BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, the name of Software in the Public Interest, Inc. shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from Software in the Public Interest, Inc. === In essence: Don't sue us, don't use SPI's name as an endorsement, but otherwise go forth and multiply. The Python license makes the same basic point, but you have to fiddle with the wording some if you're not CWI ;-) Chris -- = |Chris Lawrence |Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/ | | | | | Open Directory Editor |This address has been spam-proofed.| | http://dmoz.org/| All spam goes to your postmaster. | =
Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:32:00PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > If we DO need a license for the distribution, something short and to > the point (do whatever the hell you want with it, but don't sue us) > seems reasonable enough; I like Branden's license for the X packages > personally. Er, this is just the MIT license, with the names changed to protect the guilty. I can't claim credit for it. > === > Copyright 1996-2000 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. [...] > === > > In essence: Don't sue us, don't use SPI's name as an endorsement, but > otherwise go forth and multiply. Unfortunately, I think such a boilerplate on the distribution as a whole might seriously delude people. They might think that those terms apply to the GPL'ed software within. I'd hate for us to contribute to GPL violations by accident. I think the boilerplate aggregate license should the GPL. It will be correct in a large number of cases, and if people abide strictly by its terms, there is only a very small minority of packages whose license they could accidentally violate. But I do think that yes, we SHOULD apply an aggregation copyright and license terms. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux |If God had intended for man to go about [EMAIL PROTECTED] |naked, we would have been born that way. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgpFTYsG9bHKB.pgp Description: PGP signature
