Re: Bug#68256: License problems with TinyMUSH
On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 15:32 US/Eastern, Joe Drew wrote: Err, if your best effort is "um, no phone, no internet access, no ability to inform anybody" I don't see how this fails the desert island test. I apologize. I meant to type "chinese dissident test" but my fingers disconnected from my brain before that happened.
Re: Bug#68256: License problems with TinyMUSH
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >> On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote: >> > * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright >> > * >> > * Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to >> > * inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software. >> >> Fails the desert island test (though the desert island test originally >> was modifications, so this may be even worse). > > Err, if your best effort is "um, no phone, no internet access, no > ability to inform anybody" I don't see how this fails the desert island > test. It doesn't say you have to inform: it says you have to make your > best effort. This is part of the reason for the dissident variation on the desert island test: your best effort may get you in trouble with the authorities. Of course, the original intent may have been that this be a request and not binding. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Bug#68256: License problems with TinyMUSH
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote: > > * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright > > * > > * Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to > > * inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software. > > Fails the desert island test (though the desert island test originally > was modifications, so this may be even worse). Err, if your best effort is "um, no phone, no internet access, no ability to inform anybody" I don't see how this fails the desert island test. It doesn't say you have to inform: it says you have to make your best effort.
Re: Bug#68256: License problems with TinyMUSH
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 06:31:00PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote: > > The TinyMUSH package is not DFSG-free, > > Agreed. There are some additional problems: > > > * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright > > * > > * Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to > > * inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software. > > Fails the desert island test (though the desert island test originally > was modifications, so this may be even worse). That being the most glaring problem, and the reason it caught my eye (on scanning some archived ITP stuff for other reasons). > > * > > * All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software > > * shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual standards > > * of acknowledging credit in academic research. > > Unclear, but I don't see a problem here as long as its interpreted > reasonably. It is possible that if interpreted less nicely, this would > contaminate other works (for example, are data files used with the > package covered?) Context: the derivatives of TinyMUD are all "game" servers which provide a virtual world for people to interact in. The context in which this was almost certainly meant would, in fact, cover data files - the "world" which was developed using the server as an organizational tool. I don't claim to speak for the author's intent, but I would *not* assume that their intent would not contaminate data files; historically, this clause has been assumed to by many people involved in the development/user community. > > * > > * TinyMUSH 3.0 may be used for commercial, for-profit applications, subject > > * to the following conditions: You must acknowledge the origin of the > > * software, retaining this copyright notice in some prominent place. > > * You may charge only for access to the service you provide, not for > > * the TinyMUSH 3.0 software itself. You must inform the authors of any > > * commercial use of this software. > > Informing thing again. Yup. > > To the best of my knowlege, there is nothing in any of the licenses > > involved in any version of TinyMUSH which would prevent distribution, even > > in patched binary form, so it should be fine for non-free > > No. Nothing in that license gives us permission to modify, copy, or > distribute that software. By default, we don't have those permissions. Hmmm. I would bet that they did an exceedingly poor job of wording an intent that includes other license texts which occur previously in the full file (which are more benign; more or less being a 3-clause BSD license, under which the modifications from 1.x to 2.0/2.2 were released). The origional 1.x licensing is also... messy, so I wouldn't assume even a 2.0 or 2.2 release would be DFSG-free, short of someone doing a lot of legwork to demonstrate otherwise (author contacts, etc). -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpfy28e6kyOc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#68256: License problems with TinyMUSH
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote: > The TinyMUSH package is not DFSG-free, Agreed. There are some additional problems: > * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright > * > * Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to > * inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software. Fails the desert island test (though the desert island test originally was modifications, so this may be even worse). > * > * All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software > * shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual standards > * of acknowledging credit in academic research. Unclear, but I don't see a problem here as long as its interpreted reasonably. It is possible that if interpreted less nicely, this would contaminate other works (for example, are data files used with the package covered?) > * > * TinyMUSH 3.0 may be used for commercial, for-profit applications, subject > * to the following conditions: You must acknowledge the origin of the > * software, retaining this copyright notice in some prominent place. > * You may charge only for access to the service you provide, not for > * the TinyMUSH 3.0 software itself. You must inform the authors of any > * commercial use of this software. Informing thing again. > To the best of my knowlege, there is nothing in any of the licenses > involved in any version of TinyMUSH which would prevent distribution, even > in patched binary form, so it should be fine for non-free No. Nothing in that license gives us permission to modify, copy, or distribute that software. By default, we don't have those permissions. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#68256: License problems with TinyMUSH
The TinyMUSH package is not DFSG-free, and probably never can be (at least, not without a near-complete rewrite). Speaking as someone who has been involved with the source code various TinyMUSH servers for ten years, who lives with one of the listed authors of the 2.2 version, and who is one of the two authors of the 2.2.4 'Unoff' versions - there are vast amounts of code involved whose copyright is, at best, murky, and more often, almost completely untraceable. I can document code in the 3.0 codebase which was clearly taken from the Unoff branch (with our blessing, mind you) - but the copyrights don't reflect this (for that matter, there is only one major copyright file, which makes it utterly unclear what parts of what files might have whose copyright on them). All in all, things are messy at best, and I wouldn't trust that it is even possible to properly obtain permission for any relicense at this point. Beyond that, the following text is taken from the copyright.h file in the current 3.0 release: * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright * * Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to * inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software. * * All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software * shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual standards * of acknowledging credit in academic research. * * TinyMUSH 3.0 may be used for commercial, for-profit applications, subject * to the following conditions: You must acknowledge the origin of the * software, retaining this copyright notice in some prominent place. * You may charge only for access to the service you provide, not for * the TinyMUSH 3.0 software itself. You must inform the authors of any * commercial use of this software. * * The authors have made no warranty or representation that the operation of * this software will be error-free. The authors are under no obligation to * provide any services, by way of maintenance, update, or otherwise. The last part of the third paragraph is blatantly non-DFSG-free, and I would raise serious questions about any relicense statements by the authors, given that the codebases they have derived from had an even stricter license WRT commercial use. To the best of my knowlege, there is nothing in any of the licenses involved in any version of TinyMUSH which would prevent distribution, even in patched binary form, so it should be fine for non-free (though, frankly, I'm not sure it would be a worthwhile endeavor - and I currently run dozens of games based on the code tree). -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgp5VrhARKlk7.pgp Description: PGP signature
