Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Zygo Blaxell]

On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 15:34:05 -0500, Erich Forler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.  I
>> dunno how we'd handle subscription, etc., since obviously not all
>> developers are interested in -legal issues.
>
>This would definitely make it easier to have open, constructive dialog, but 
>such
>private lists fly in the face of the openness of the community to some degree 
>and
>doesn't guarantee that the topics will stay out of the slashdot headlines.

Indeed, the Corel Linux beta 1 license was originally _faxed_ privately
to individual developers, yet it ended up on Slashdot anyway.  If legal
documents can go from being on paper to ending up on Slashdot, I don't see
what prevents an email list--even a private one--from going the same way.

IMHO Slashdot is only interested in perceived irreconcilable differences
between groups of geeks, and things that get mobs of geeks excited,
preferably a combination of the two.  Normally the traffic in debian-legal
is excruciatingly boring (hey, this _is_ MHO ;-) legal discussions
about the essential details that make integrating software written
by two different people a living hell for the poor fool who has to
integrate them.

It is postings with subject lines like "Corel lawsuit" that attract
Slashdot, not the calm, rational discussions of legal issues involved
in licenses that makes up 90% of debian-legal traffic before the end of
September, 1999.  

The best Slashdot repellent is boredom.  Just be calm and sensible, ignore
the flaming trolls, let the lawyers talk directly to each other on the
list, and Slashdot will get bored and go away.

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 03:39:54PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Dec 02, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:13:14AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > > On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > > They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> > > > slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.
> > > 
> > > It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.  I
> > > dunno how we'd handle subscription, etc., since obviously not all
> > > developers are interested in -legal issues.
> > > 
> > > Then we can invite selected people from VA (if you want to call their
> > > disc with O'Reilly a separate distro), Corel, Stormix, whoever in to
> > > discuss these things, without creating slashdot headlines.
> > 
> > You are closing development. I understand the need of a few
> > registered-maintainers-only lists, but such
> > Council-Of-Big-And-Important-Persons is completely against the
> > spirit of free software.
> > The next step will be making a corporation and monopolize GNU/Linux.
> 
> 1: This list has nothing to do with development; it deals with
> licensing issues of third-party software that we wish to incorporate
> into Debian.  As such, it's not closing development.
> 
> 2: The "Council of Big and Important Persons" would actually be more
> inclusive than a registered maintainers only list, because people
> proposing licenses, who are not Debian developers, would be allowed to
> participate as well as existing developers.
> 
> It seems to me that such a list is a way to have a more inclusive
> review of licenses than simply having people email (say) Bruce or ESR
> privately, which is what happens now.  Not that Bruce doesn't do a
> good job, but I think we (the free software community) need more pairs
> of eyes so he doesn't get fed up with doing the job.  And it lets
> people like Corel or the KDE group float trial balloons that won't get
> posted to Slashdot.
> 
> As for your "next step", there's no way to monopolize GNU/Linux,
> because there are virtually zero barriers to entry in the Linux
> business.

And they should stay zero !
But what you are doing in such list will not be some software project
This will be licencing list, and whoever knows if some of your
ideas there wont higher this barrier.

There are two problems I see :
- many people helping develop debian arent official maintainers
  either because they cant join now, work for competitors or
  cant join due to some technical problems. Someone will have
  to sort them, and this is bad
- DO NOT FORWARD TO SLASHDOT disclaimer to every such mail
  is simplier and whoever voids this line should get a mail
  that he made a very wrong thing and shouldnt do it in future
  If someone will still do it he have cortainly some good reasons
  for it.

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Chris Lawrence]

On Dec 02, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:13:14AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
> > > 
> > > And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> > > slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.
> > 
> > It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.  I
> > dunno how we'd handle subscription, etc., since obviously not all
> > developers are interested in -legal issues.
> > 
> > Then we can invite selected people from VA (if you want to call their
> > disc with O'Reilly a separate distro), Corel, Stormix, whoever in to
> > discuss these things, without creating slashdot headlines.
> 
> You are closing development. I understand the need of a few
> registered-maintainers-only lists, but such
> Council-Of-Big-And-Important-Persons is completely against the
> spirit of free software.
> The next step will be making a corporation and monopolize GNU/Linux.

1: This list has nothing to do with development; it deals with
licensing issues of third-party software that we wish to incorporate
into Debian.  As such, it's not closing development.

2: The "Council of Big and Important Persons" would actually be more
inclusive than a registered maintainers only list, because people
proposing licenses, who are not Debian developers, would be allowed to
participate as well as existing developers.

It seems to me that such a list is a way to have a more inclusive
review of licenses than simply having people email (say) Bruce or ESR
privately, which is what happens now.  Not that Bruce doesn't do a
good job, but I think we (the free software community) need more pairs
of eyes so he doesn't get fed up with doing the job.  And it lets
people like Corel or the KDE group float trial balloons that won't get
posted to Slashdot.

As for your "next step", there's no way to monopolize GNU/Linux,
because there are virtually zero barriers to entry in the Linux
business.


Chris
-- 
=
|Chris Lawrence| Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs|
|   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   |http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/   |
|  ||
|   Debian Developer   |   Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5:   |
|http://www.debian.org/|   <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*>   |
=

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Bruce Perens]

From: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.

I'd be more comfortable with that, yes.

I have a little problem in that my company is investing in a Debian project
(The details of that are _not_ yet public knowledge). We want to maintain
the proper separation between our business and the private affairs of Debian
the non-profit, and thus I am _not_ subscribing to debian-private. But it might
make sense for a legal-private list to be something less than Debian's inner
sanctum and allow participation by outsiders.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Henning Makholm]

Erich Forler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Given the slashdot effect and general flame wars which erupt,

It seems to me that the general flame wars are fueled to a very large
degree by the fact that the victim (here: Corel) seemlingly decides
wierd things in private *without* entering a dialogoue in a public
forum.

As such, much of the incentive to flaming would disappear if some
Corel lawyers were participaring in the discussions e.g. here.

-- 
Henning Makholm"I, madam, am the Archchancellor!
   And I happen to run this University!"

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Henning Makholm]

Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> FYI, I just got this (anonymous) reply from Corel.

> --- Forwarded Message
> Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law  (Corel is a Canadian company)
> that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
> with a minor.

The open question is still why Corel think they have to enter a
contract with people that merely want to download free software.

(I've argued that they have a *right* to think so. I fail to see how
they have a *reason* to think so).

-- 
Henning Makholm   "Hi! I'm an Ellen Jamesian. Do
you know what an Ellen Jamesian is?"

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:15:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Anthony Towns 
> > And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
> > anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
> > collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?
> 
> You can't contract with a minor in the U.S. either. The point is that the
> software license is probably not a contract with the minor but with their
> parent or guardian.

Does it mean : parent or guardian automagically gains all rights to
the ``intelectual property'' made by minor in US ???

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:13:14AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
> > 
> > And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> > slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.
> 
> It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.  I
> dunno how we'd handle subscription, etc., since obviously not all
> developers are interested in -legal issues.
> 
> Then we can invite selected people from VA (if you want to call their
> disc with O'Reilly a separate distro), Corel, Stormix, whoever in to
> discuss these things, without creating slashdot headlines.

You are closing development. I understand the need of a few
registered-maintainers-only lists, but such
Council-Of-Big-And-Important-Persons is completely against the
spirit of free software.
The next step will be making a corporation and monopolize GNU/Linux.

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Erich Forler]

> > And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> > slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.

Yes, keeping tabs on slashdot flame wars isn't generally how I like to spend my
days.

> It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.  I
> dunno how we'd handle subscription, etc., since obviously not all
> developers are interested in -legal issues.

This would definitely make it easier to have open, constructive dialog, but such
private lists fly in the face of the openness of the community to some degree 
and
doesn't guarantee that the topics will stay out of the slashdot headlines.

Erich Forler
Product Development Manager
Corel Linux

-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  
The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Erich Forler]

> I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
> if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
> distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
> run things by us.

Given the slashdot effect and general flame wars which erupt, I'm not sure an 
open
forum is the appropriate place for such discussions. Of course exclusive closed
discussions are equally disliked so I don't have a solution to propose.

Erich Forler
Product Development Manager
Corel Linux

-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  
The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Chris Lawrence]

On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
> 
> And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.

It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.  I
dunno how we'd handle subscription, etc., since obviously not all
developers are interested in -legal issues.

Then we can invite selected people from VA (if you want to call their
disc with O'Reilly a separate distro), Corel, Stormix, whoever in to
discuss these things, without creating slashdot headlines.


Chris
-- 
=
|Chris Lawrence| The Linux/m68k FAQ |
|   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   |   http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/faq.html   |
|  ||
|   Grad Student, Pol. Sci.| Are you tired of politics as usual?|
|  University of Mississippi   | http://www.lp.org/ |
=

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Anthony Towns 
> > In other words, what you said originally is probably wrong:
> I'm not communicating my point clearly.
> What I wanted to say was that they should be _consistent_ in their application
> of the legal-minor issue. If they want to restrict distribution to over-18,

Sure, I agree with this.

> IMO they don't need quite so much CYA language in their license and thus the
> legal minor issue is irrelevant. Many other companies their size or larger do
> without quite so much CYA, including Canadian companies that contribute to
> Debian.

Yeah.

> > I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
> > if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
> > distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
> > run things by us.
> I think they are listening but they don't want to talk.

Which is pretty unfortunate, considering they've got lots of clues that
we're probably missing out on.

> They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.

And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpITE7Uh6pVs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Bruce Perens]

From: Anthony Towns 
> In other words, what you said originally is probably wrong:

I'm not communicating my point clearly.

What I wanted to say was that they should be _consistent_ in their application
of the legal-minor issue. If they want to restrict distribution to over-18,
they should not use software contributed by minors because that would be an
inconsistent application of the over-18 principle: ignoring the principle
when it's to their advantage, and restricting when it's neutral or not to
their advantage.

IMO they don't need quite so much CYA language in their license and thus the
legal minor issue is irrelevant. Many other companies their size or larger do
without quite so much CYA, including Canadian companies that contribute to
Debian.

> I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
> if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
> distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
> run things by us.

I think they are listening but they don't want to talk.
I recently went to hire counsel for my company. I sent out a message on
license-discuss, asking if any real attorneys read the list and would consider
a relationship with me an important part of their business. I got an answer
from an attorney at a top-notch Palo Alto law firm, who admitted to reading
my posts for two years but had never posted _once_ in all of that time as a
lurker. They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:15:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Anthony Towns 
> > And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
> > anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
> > collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?
> You can't contract with a minor in the U.S. either. The point is that the
> software license is probably not a contract with the minor but with their
> parent or guardian.

In other words, what you said originally is probably wrong:

>>> So, have they broken that one once for every package built by a minor, and
>>> every package containing contributions from a minor? If so, they probably
>>> have no right to distribute a good deal of Debian software.

in that they haven't broken it at all, they've simply made contracts with
a bunch of parents and guardians, or similar.

Sure, that means their `over 18' thing is equally unnecessary, and that
whoever emailed you doesn't know what they're talking about, but that's
not a crime.

I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
run things by us. Catching things like this, the beta license and the
apt/qt thing /before/ they happen would be good...

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpLPl3Wnt8Zt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Bruce Perens]

From: Anthony Towns 
> And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
> anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
> collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?

You can't contract with a minor in the U.S. either. The point is that the
software license is probably not a contract with the minor but with their
parent or guardian.

Bruce

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Julian Stoev]

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:

> FYI, I just got this (anonymous) reply from Corel.
> Peter
> 
> --- Forwarded Message
> 
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:45:55 -0500
> From: "Feedback Linux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Free Download End User License Agreement
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Sorry I was not able to get back to you earlier, but I got a little bit
> of email that day.
> 
> Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law  (Corel is a Canadian company)
> that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
> with a minor.
> 
> Regards,
> Linux feedback
> Corel Corporation

In this case they should not use any software line produced by minors
under GPL. By using this kind of software they violate Canada law by
entering into contract with minor.

What if every package in Debian gets at least one line by a minor? I
assume they are going to fork and create debian-minor-free? ;-)

Also every person in Canada violates Canada law by using GPL software
made by minors.

--JS

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 10:37:02PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law  (Corel is a Canadian company)
> > that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
> > with a minor.
> So, have they broken that one once for every package built by a minor, and
> every package containing contributions from a minor? If so, they probably
> have no right to distribute a good deal of Debian software.

And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpliafeGYtgz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Bruce Perens]

From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law  (Corel is a Canadian company)
> that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
> with a minor.

So, have they broken that one once for every package built by a minor, and
every package containing contributions from a minor? If so, they probably
have no right to distribute a good deal of Debian software.

Bruce

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Peter S Galbraith]

FYI, I just got this (anonymous) reply from Corel.
Peter

--- Forwarded Message

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:45:55 -0500
From: "Feedback Linux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

Hi Peter,

Sorry I was not able to get back to you earlier, but I got a little bit
of email that day.

Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law  (Corel is a Canadian company)
that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
with a minor.

Regards,
Linux feedback
Corel Corporation

Peter S Galbraith wrote:

> A few days ago, I wrote to you:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > http://linux.corel.com/products/linux_os/eula.htm says:
> >
> >  1.YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR AND THAT YOU AGREE TO BE
> >  BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE LICENSE
> >  BELOW.
> >
> > The Debian GNU/Linux distribution (and the GPL) on which Corel
> > Linux is based has no such requirements (that the end user be 18
> > years of age).  Therefore Corel is itself BREAKING the license
> > that allows them to modidy and redistribute GPLed code.
> >
> > Please have the decency to remove this notice before it winds up
> > on Slashdot, or worse, before code authors make you do so.
> >
> > Peter Galbraith (not speaking for Debian as a whole, just myself),
> > Debian developer
>
> As it turns out, it did wind up on www.slashdot.org.
>
> It's likely that Corel is not doing anything illegal here.  Corel
> is just doing something stupid, greatly annoying some of the
> people who are supplying Corel with code Corel can sell.
>
> Peter Galbraith (not speaking for Debian as a whole, just myself),
> Debian developer

--- End of Forwarded Message