Re: Bug#819332: License question about sf2 soundfont in Tuxguitar
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:33:07AM -0800, tony mancill wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 10:02:55PM +0100, Helmar Gerloni wrote: > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html > > Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your answers. > > > > I have removed MagicSFver2.sf2 from the package and added a note to > > README.Debian. > > The new package now depends on fluid-soundfont-gm, see > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/tuxguitar/ > > > > The package builds and runs on amd64 and in Qemu for arm64. It looks pretty > > good to me now. > > Maybe someone can take a look and upload it? > > If there is anything more I can do, just let me know. > > Hello Helmar, > > I am reviewing the updated package now and will either sponsor an upload > if everything looks good or provide feedback. The update looks great! I have updated debian/copyright to document the files that are licensed under a license other than the LGPL, but otherwise everything looks good. I will upload today. For the time-being, I will push the updated sources and tag to the current java-team repo [1], but we may want adjust that before the bullseye release since the package is no longer team-maintained. Thank you for your work on this! tony [1] https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/tuxguitar
Re: Bug#819332: License question about sf2 soundfont in Tuxguitar
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 10:02:55PM +0100, Helmar Gerloni wrote: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html > Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your answers. > > I have removed MagicSFver2.sf2 from the package and added a note to > README.Debian. > The new package now depends on fluid-soundfont-gm, see > https://mentors.debian.net/package/tuxguitar/ > > The package builds and runs on amd64 and in Qemu for arm64. It looks pretty > good to me now. > Maybe someone can take a look and upload it? > If there is anything more I can do, just let me know. Hello Helmar, I am reviewing the updated package now and will either sponsor an upload if everything looks good or provide feedback. Thank you! tony signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: License question about sf2 soundfont in Tuxguitar
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your answers. I have removed MagicSFver2.sf2 from the package and added a note to README.Debian. The new package now depends on fluid-soundfont-gm, see https://mentors.debian.net/package/tuxguitar/ The package builds and runs on amd64 and in Qemu for arm64. It looks pretty good to me now. Maybe someone can take a look and upload it? If there is anything more I can do, just let me know.
Re: License question about sf2 soundfont in Tuxguitar
>From my personal experience of 15+ years contacting with authors of thousands of "free" sound fonts: they are usually composed of sounds taken from random places, and nobody really knows who made them or what their license are. Many of them take samples from other "free" sound fonts, and chain gets larger and larger so the true origin is difficult to trace. The assemblers of the sound fonts just assume that, if they can't find a copyright notice attached to the samples, they must be in the public domain. And most likely they are not. Even if they were originally released under a permissive license, the license and authors should be maintained as a minimum. Of course, there are exceptions of sound font assemblers who correctly document their sources and licenses of each individual sample, but that's a lot of work, and most common case is just to ignore everything and assume that it will be fine. It's the true and sad state of most free sound sample libraries out there.
License question about sf2 soundfont in Tuxguitar
Hello legal team, I am trying to update the Tuxguitar package from version 1.2 to 1.5.6. The new version includes the soundfont "Magic Sound Font v2.0". While Tuxguitar is licensed under LGPL-2.1+, the license of the soundfont file (MagicSFver2.sf2) is not 100% clear. The issue was discussed in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819332 https://sourceforge.net/p/tuxguitar/support-requests/13/ In the SF ticket, the Tuxguitar author states that the author of the soundfont, Dennis, "allowed us redistribute the soundfont with tuxguitar". I tried to email Dennis to ask about the license of the soundfont, but did not receive a reply. The soundfont file can also be downloaded as "free soundfont" in the "Community Audio" collection on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/opensource_audio?query=free-soundfonts-sf2-2019-04 https://archive.org/download/free-soundfonts-sf2-2019-04/MagicSFver2.sf2 There are already a few other sf2 soundfonts in Debian. sf2 files can be edited with open source soundfont editors like Polyphone, so the format should not be a problem. Do you think it is possible to add the file MagicSFver2.sf2 to the Debian package, maybe under LGPL-2.1+, like the Tuxguitar sources? Or maybe as "public domain"? Regards, Helmar.
Fwd: License question virtualbox-ext-pack vs. virtualbox-guest-additions-iso
Hello Debain Legal team, I'm in doubt about the licenses of the packages virtualbox-ext-pack and virtualbox-guest-additions-iso in the Debian repositories. Please see my email below to the Debian Virtualbox team. kind regards Christian Forwarded Message Subject: License question virtualbox-ext-pack vs. virtualbox-guest-additions-iso Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:54:01 +0100 From: Christian Kuka To: team+debian-virtual...@tracker.debian.org Hi all, In our team we just came across the question which license apply to the virtualbox debian packages and we were a little bit confused by the copyright files of the virtualbox packages. - For virtualbox-ext-pack, the copyright file is mentioning BSD-3-clause as the license: https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//contrib/v/virtualbox-ext-pack/virtualbox-ext-pack_6.1.40-1_copyright - For virtualbox-guest-additions-iso, the copyright file is mentioning Virtualbox-PUEL as the license: https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/v/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso_6.1.40-1_copyright However, according to the description of virtualbox-ext-pack at https://packages.debian.org/sid/virtualbox-ext-pack as well as at https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ only the "VirtualBox Extension Pack" is licensed under the "VirtualBox Extension Pack Personal Use and Evaluation License" and VirtualBox base package (full source code and platform binaries) are licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2. Thus, "virtualbox-ext-pack" should mention PUEL in the copyright file and "virtualbox-guest-additions-iso" should mention a different license? Further, if that is the case, should "virtualbox-ext-pack" be moved to non-free instead of contrib? Is there a misunderstanding on our side or is there already a clarification on the Debian pages? kind regards Christian
OpenJDK 7.0 license question
[CC me please] Hi there, Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the following license: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ - http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf ... 1.1 “Compatible Licensee Implementation” means a Licensee Implementation that (i) fully implements the Java Specification, including all its required interfaces and functionality; (ii) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, ... where ... 1.6 Licensor Name Space means the public class or interface declarations whose names begin with java, javax, com.Oracle, “com.Sun” or their equivalents in any subsequent naming convention adopted by Oracle through the Java Community Process, or any recognized successors or replacements thereof. ... Thanks much for clarification, we have an issue with saxonhe having those licensing words: ref: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/2013-September/043308.html Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ca+7wuszgfr3ekxmymv0ucmjqyin7sojxt6b1e35ue6bj6x8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: OpenJDK 7.0 license question
Mathieu Malaterre ma...@debian.org wrote: [CC me please] Hi there, Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the following license: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ - http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf Looking at /usr/share/doc/openjdk-7-jre/copyright it does not mention that license. I do not think that Debian ships the TCK. Looking at http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html it looks like they do not give out the TCK to everyone. Cheers, Walter Landry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130904.103524.1589744090062387635.wlan...@caltech.edu
Re: OpenJDK 7.0 license question
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 07:13:50PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: [CC me please] Hi there, Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the following license: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ - http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf As Walter notes, this appears to be the license for the TCK, which is not part of the OpenJDK that we ship. The TCK is not freely redistributable at all. 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. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: License Question
* Daniel Echeverry: I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in debian/copyright file? Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sj6osvhv@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: License Question
2012/12/29 Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de * Daniel Echeverry: I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in debian/copyright file? Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead? Hi, Ohh I misunderstood I want to know if the lincense is free software, And if it is compatible with DFSG Regards. -- Epsilon http://wiki.debian.org/DanielEcheverry http://www.rinconinformatico.net http://enchulatucelu.com http://www.todopdf.net http://www.fitnessdeportes.com http://www.dragonjar.org Linux user: #477840 Debian user
Re: License Question
* Daniel Echeverry: 2012/12/29 Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de * Daniel Echeverry: I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in debian/copyright file? Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead? Ohh I misunderstood I want to know if the lincense is free software, And if it is compatible with DFSG It is DFSG-compatible because it's already in the archive. You shouldn't ship it a second time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87pq1sn0pf@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: license question
On 17/03/2012 01:18, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: could anyone help me resolve this license question : https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca That page contains more than one question. If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs, i can consider i answered him. Any idea ? Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f643fde.2070...@melix.org
Re: license question
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs, i can consider i answered him. That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is You may not release the Software under a more restrictive license than this one. trying to say that he doesn't want the program to be used as part of a program that is only available under the GPL? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/84d38blk5b@sauna.l.org
Re: license question
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors timo.lindf...@iki.fi wrote: Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs, i can consider i answered him. That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is What he really wants is to be obtuse. Just read his responses to commenters on that page. If, through his obstinance, he's not going to freely license his software, then do ask he asks and, [Sit] down and [think] about the problem for an hour or less, [and] probably come up with exactly [his] solution. He's not worth bothering with. Just re-impliment whatever it is he's done, license it properly, and move on. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnys7amd6d1sntpdvkb39-j5unoxyurqjbowelbtnv9r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: license question
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:42:59 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: Well that is a fun license. I think it is attempting to say that the work doesn't qualify to have copyright/patent laws applied to it. IMO it is way too vague to achieve that and cannot override copyright law where copright law disagrees. It also constitutes license proliferation. Moreover, it's incompatible with various Free Software licenses (most notably the GNU GPL v2, the GNU GPL v3, the GNU LGPL v2.1, the GNU LGPL v3, ...), it does not (clearly) meet the DFSG (since the meaning of the term use is not explained and could be interpreted to *not* cover modification and/or distribution). I agree with Christofer C. Bell that the most reasonable strategy here is really a (clean-room) reimplementation licensed under sane terms... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp6AY0hlXv7S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: license question
If, on contact, his goal is just wide-openness delivered in an eccentric license, then I would recommend the WTFPL v2 located at http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ which basically says you can do anything you want to with the software. Its an eccentric license that is Debian compliant, and wide open. Otherwise, I'd probably point them in the direction of the BSD or zlib licenses, which are wide open as well, but more well known. If he doesn't want to part with his license, you could also try to ask for him to dual license as a last resort. His license along side a DFSG license, such that person receiving the software can choose either... that may work. If they don't wish to relicense or dual license with a Debian friendly alternative, then yes, reimplementation under a better license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cahzo7kk7ojwuhrt4lhsuxaiaqm8wqtjxok+u7doeovvdp2w...@mail.gmail.com
Re: license question
On 17/03/2012 16:14, Felyza Wishbringer wrote: If, on contact, his goal is just wide-openness delivered in an eccentric license, then I would recommend the WTFPL v2 located at http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ which basically says you can do anything you want to with the software. Its an eccentric license that is Debian compliant, and wide open. I came to the same conclusion. Otherwise, I'd probably point them in the direction of the BSD or zlib licenses, which are wide open as well, but more well known. If he doesn't want to part with his license, you could also try to ask for him to dual license as a last resort. His license along side a DFSG license, such that person receiving the software can choose either... that may work. If they don't wish to relicense or dual license with a Debian friendly alternative, then yes, reimplementation under a better license. I was just doing that. Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f64ad40.40...@melix.org
Re: license question
On 17/03/2012 11:14, Christofer C. Bell wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors timo.lindf...@iki.fi wrote: Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs, i can consider i answered him. That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is What he really wants is to be obtuse. Just read his responses to commenters on that page. If, through his obstinance, he's not going to freely license his software, then do ask he asks and, [Sit] down and [think] about the problem for an hour or less, [and] probably come up with exactly [his] solution. He's not worth bothering with. Just re-impliment whatever it is he's done, license it properly, and move on. I just did that. Thanks for the advices everyone. Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f64d6ed.7070...@melix.org
license question
Hi, could anyone help me resolve this license question : https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case. Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f63d3ad.20...@melix.org
Re: license question
2012/3/17 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org: Hi, could anyone help me resolve this license question : https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case. Just for the record, the license says: Copyright 2011 Isaac Z. Schlueter (the Author) All rights reserved. General Public Obviousness License The Author asserts that this software and associated documentation files (the Software), while the Author's original creation, is nonetheless obvious, trivial, unpatentable, and implied by the context in which the software was created. If you sat down and thought about the problem for an hour or less, you'd probably come up with exactly this solution. Permission is granted to use this software in any way whatsoever, with the following restriction: You may not release the Software under a more restrictive license than this one. 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 THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFotxVMp=_a+pb5xuuwhzt+8cm0h08_a6fxz+x5e3p0fvmy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: license question
Well that is a fun license. I think it is attempting to say that the work doesn't qualify to have copyright/patent laws applied to it. IMO it is way too vague to achieve that and cannot override copyright law where copright law disagrees. It also constitutes license proliferation. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fhkwr7znnvs_bbsphd-hch3y6oy6+6ibkbjn+xo19...@mail.gmail.com
Re: License question
Bernhard Reiter asked: The following license applies to one cardset included with pysolfc-cardsets (currently waiting for review). It looks like MIT/X to me, but as IANAL, I was wondering if this is DFSG compatible and thus okay to include? (I'm currently not including it because I wasn't sure.) [...] PS Please CC me as I'm not a list subscriber! Searching the legal list archives for the first line finds the gxditview licence quoted in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/06/msg00019.html Looking at the gxditview licence in http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/groff/current/copyright finds it to be identical apart from the names. So I don't see a reason not to include it. 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110312104357.0ac1af7...@nail.towers.org.uk
License question
The following license applies to one cardset included with pysolfc-cardsets (currently waiting for review). It looks like MIT/X to me, but as IANAL, I was wondering if this is DFSG compatible and thus okay to include? (I'm currently not including it because I wasn't sure.) Kind regards Bernhard Reiter PS Please CC me as I'm not a list subscriber! License: This PySol cardset was adapted from spider 1.1. http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/games/solitaires/ Copyright (C) 1989 Donald R. Woods and Sun Microsystems, Inc. Copyright (C) 1999 Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer markus.oberhu...@jk.uni-linz.ac.at /* % Copyright (c) 1989, Donald R. Woods and Sun Microsystems, Inc. % % Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its % documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that % the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright % notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and % that the names of Donald Woods and Sun Microsystems not be used in % advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without % specific, written prior permission. Donald Woods and Sun Microsystems make % no representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. % It is provided as is without express or implied warranty. % % THE ABOVE-NAMED DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, % INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT % SHALL DONALD WOODS OR SUN MICROSYSTEMS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR % CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, % DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER % TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE % OF THIS SOFTWARE. % % History: Spider is a solitaire card game that can be found in various books % of same; the rules are presumed to be in the public domain. The author's % first computer implementation was on the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab % system (SAIL). It was later ported to the Xerox Development Environment. % The card images are loosely based on scanned-in images but were largely % redrawn by the author with help from Larry Rosenberg. % % This program is written entirely in NeWS and runs on OPEN WINDOWS 1.0. % It could be made to run much faster if parts of it were written in C, using % NeWS mainly for its display and input capabilities, but that is left as an % exercise for the reader. Spider may also run with little or no modification % on subsequent releases of OPEN WINDOWS, but no guarantee is made on this % point (nor any other; see above!). To run Spider, feed this file to 'psh'. % % Author: Don Woods % wo...@sun.com % % Sun Microsystems, Inc. % 2550 Garcia Avenue % Mountain View, CA 94043 */ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299848469.2791.75.camel@razor
License question for new package
Hello - I'm packaging something new that has a custom license, and I'd an official opinion as to which repo it can go it: Platinum Arts Sandbox is a product of Platinum Arts LLC. Product Webpage: http://SandboxGameMaker.com Platinum Arts LLC Homepage (adults only) - http://PlatinumArts.Net E-mail: platinuma...@gmail.com 1. This notice may not be removed or altered from any distribution. 2. The Cube 2 license located in /src must be read and abided by as well. The Cube 2 license only pertains to the original Cube 2 source and not to any Platinum Arts LLC additions/modifications. 3. If you use Platinum Arts Sandbox to make a project please be sure to contact Platinum Arts LLC and provide information about the project. Also be sure to clearly credit Platinum Arts Sandbox on your webpage, software and documentation. Your code must remain open to Platinum Arts LLC and available for use in Platinum Arts Sandbox to help further the project. 4. With the exception of content with an individual readme file, any content submitted for inclusion in Platinum Arts Sandbox becomes property of Platinum Arts LLC. Authors of the content will be credited and they can use their work in other projects. 5. With the exception of content with an individual readme file, all content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for distribution. In other words if you want to use Platinum Arts Sandbox maps or other content in another software projects, please ask first. 6. This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages or any other problems arising from the use of this software. 7. NOTE TO EDUCATORS - If you use this software in an educational setting please send us an e-mail and tell us where and how it is being used. Additonally we'd appreciate feedback on student reaction and how things work out. It would be much appreciated if you posted your experiences here: http://forum.sandboxgamemaker.com/viewforum.php?f=17 8. Any questions or concerns about this license should be directed to platinuma...@gmail.com Thank you for your interest and I hope you enjoy using Platinum Arts Sandbox! - Platinum Arts LLC Bringing Imagination To Life I have written permission to package this for Debian and all Debian derivatives. The cube2 license they refer to is: Moviecube is a Machinima tool based on the Sauerbraten game engine, both of which are covered under the ZLIB license. You may use the source code so long as you obey this license, for further information see: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php Is this a non-free program or could it fit into main? Thank you. Regards, Scott Howard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License question for new package
Hi, Have a look at this part: With the exception of content with an individual readme file, all content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for distribution. It is not even valid for non-free without an special permission. My approach for this package was to package te game engine and the lite game data set (free) into main, and then add the extended data set, with permission, to non-free. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License question for new package
Scott Howard showard...@gmail.com writes: Hello - I'm packaging something new that has a custom license, and I'd an official opinion as to which repo it can go it: Thank you for your attention to this topic, and for quoting the license text here for inspection. Overall, the language is poor for a description of terms and conditions, with many conditions phrased in passive voice (“foo will be frobnicated”) instead of making the subject explicit (“you must frobnicate foo”). This makes it difficult to know who is to be responsible for doing what. Nothing in the text you've shown here *grants* any permissions; it is essentially a big list of “this must be done” and “that must not be done”. Without explicit grant of license to copy, modify, redistribute, etc., the default restrictions of copyright still apply and the work remains trivially non-free. 1. This notice may not be removed or altered from any distribution. No problems, requirement to preserve license terms is not a non-free restriction. 2. The Cube 2 license located in /src must be read and abided by as well. The Cube 2 license only pertains to the original Cube 2 source and not to any Platinum Arts LLC additions/modifications. This appears to make the license terms a union between this document and some other document. Unfortunately, those terms are given at a URL: The cube2 license they refer to is: Moviecube is a Machinima tool based on the Sauerbraten game engine, both of which are covered under the ZLIB license. You may use the source code so long as you obey this license, for further information see: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php The terms should be part of the work so they can be inspected at any time in the future regardless of access to that URL or whether its contents remain the same. 3. If you use Platinum Arts Sandbox to make a project please be sure to contact Platinum Arts LLC and provide information about the project. Also be sure to clearly credit Platinum Arts Sandbox on your webpage, software and documentation. Lawyerbomb: Dangerously vague “use” term; if they mean copy, modify, redistribute, etc. this doesn't make it clear. Obnoxious advertising requirement: IMO this restriction makes the work non-free for the same reasons the similar requirement in the original BSD license makes a work non-free. Your code must remain open to Platinum Arts LLC and available for use in Platinum Arts Sandbox to help further the project. Again, what “use” means here is not defined. Lawyerbomb. 4. With the exception of content with an individual readme file, any content submitted for inclusion in Platinum Arts Sandbox becomes property of Platinum Arts LLC. Authors of the content will be credited and they can use their work in other projects. This seems to be an attempt to circumvent the copyright on derived works. I have no idea what jurisdictions would even recognise this grab; regardless, to the extent it's effective, it makes the work non-free to require surrendering copyright in one's own work. 5. With the exception of content with an individual readme file, all content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for distribution. In other words if you want to use Platinum Arts Sandbox maps or other content in another software projects, please ask first. Lawyerbomb: What does “all content” mean here? Is it intended to cover derived works? A similar attempt at copyright circumvention with the same problems as above. 6. This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages or any other problems arising from the use of this software. No problems; a custom disclaimer of warranty, which doesn't put any non-free restrictions on the recipient. 7. NOTE TO EDUCATORS - If you use this software in an educational setting please send us an e-mail […] Appears to be a request, so doesn't appear to affect recipient's freedom in the work. Doesn't belong in a license text, and should be moved elsewhere. 8. Any questions or concerns about this license should be directed to platinuma...@gmail.com Also doesn't really belong as a numbered item in a license text. I have written permission to package this for Debian and all Debian derivatives. Thank you for seeking that, but it's unfortunately not enough. DFSG §8 requires the license to not be specific to the work remaining part of a Debian system. All recipients of Debian must be free to exercise the full license in the work regardless of whether the work remains part of Debian. Is this a non-free program or could it fit into main? In summary: this isn't even a license, it's a set of restrictions. It grants no permissions to copy, modify, redistribute, etc., so the work remains non-free (per default copyright restrictions). Even if those permissions were granted, the restrictions are poorly phrased with several lawyerbombs
Re: License question for new package
Thanks Miry for the reply! On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote: Have a look at this part: With the exception of content with an individual readme file, all content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for distribution. It is not even valid for non-free without an special permission. So if I have permission to package for inclusion in Debian, I am able to package the entire extended set and engine into non-free? It seems like they aren't putting much effort into making it free (or keeping up with the debian free package you got them to do), so I'm thinking of just taking what they give and put it as non-free until they start releasing free stuff since we have permission to package it for Debian. I'm working on sandboxgamemaker which would include all the game mode binaries, the server binaries, and extended package set. does that make sense? Thank you for your help. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License question for new package
Le Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 01:23:26PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Obnoxious advertising requirement: IMO this restriction makes the work non-free for the same reasons the similar requirement in the original BSD license makes a work non-free. Hello everybody, works licenced with advertisement clauses are accepted in Debian by our archive administrators. See for instance http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/j/jhdf/jhdf_2.5-3/libjhdf5-jni.copyright Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
License question
(please copy me off list) I have a package (ftp://ftp.linuxcanada.com/pub/Quasar/1.4.7/source/quasar-1.4.7_GPL.tgz) that I want to bring in to Debian, but it has two licenses in the base directory. One is called LICENSE.GPL and contains the usual GPLv2 The other is called LICENSE.COMMERCIAL and is quite restrictive. Is this truly GPL? Can I package it for Debian? If I package it do I include both licenses? Karl Schmidt EMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Transtronics, Inc. WEB http://xtronics.com 3209 West 9th StreetPh (785) 841-3089 Lawrence, KS 66049 FAX (785) 841-0434 When angry count four; when very angry, swear. --Mark Twain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question
Karl Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a package (ftp://ftp.linuxcanada.com/pub/Quasar/1.4.7/source/quasar-1.4.7_GPL.tgz) that I want to bring in to Debian, but it has two licenses in the base directory. The presence of a file containing license terms is not enough to act as a grant of license under those terms. It is merely a text document included in the work. And, as in this case, several such documents can be included, and none of them act as a grant of license unless the copyright holder explicitly says so in writing. What is needed is an explicit grant of license from the copyright holders in the work, clearly indicating or stating the terms under which the recipient may exercise rights normally reserved to the copyright holder. You need to look through the work: preferably every file of creative effort in the work, since many works consist of contributions from many copyright holders under different license terms. Find what the copyright notice says about permission or license; that information will tell you what license terms apply, and needs to go into the 'debian/copyright' file. (please copy me off list) Done. -- \ The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice | `\ within. -- Mahatma Gandhi | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license question
Hi, I have a question about a software license. The software in question is not packaged for Debian. Is the following license a free software license (by the defn of the DFSG)? It looks to me like a BSD style license, but I'm not an expert. If not, what is problematic about it? Please cc me at the above email address. Thanks. Faheem. Copyright (c) 2007, Patrick Kranzlmueller (vonautomatisch werkstaetten), All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met : 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. 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. 3. Neither the name of FileBrowser nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or prom ote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE I MPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FO R 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license question
Faheem Mitha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a question about a software license. The software in question is not packaged for Debian. Can you tell us what the software is and where it can be found? Is the following license a free software license (by the defn of the DFSG)? The license isn't measured against the DFSG; the software work is. It looks to me like a BSD style license, but I'm not an expert. If not, what is problematic about it? Please cc me at the above email address. Thanks. Faheem. Done. Copyright (c) 2007, Patrick Kranzlmueller (vonautomatisch werkstaetten), All rights reserved. The All rights reserved is confusing (since they then go on to *un*-reserve many of those same rights) and is usually regarded as legally null. Probably best if it were dropped, to let the grant of license be clearer. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met : 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. 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. 3. Neither the name of FileBrowser nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or prom ote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. These are the (badly-formatted; did you mis-paste this from somewhere?) conditions of a 3-clause BSD-style license. Works under these terms grant all the required freedoms under the DFSG. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS [...] If they're going to swipe a 3-clause BSD-style license and substitute FileBrowser above, they should also replace REGENTS in this disclaimer (it appears twice). With the caveats mentioned above, a work licensed under these terms would be DFSG-free in my opinion. -- \ In the long run, the utility of all non-Free software | `\ approaches zero. All non-Free software is a dead end. —Mark | _o__)Pilgrim, 2006 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License Question
(Charliej has asked a straightforward question about a package's license and whether it can be in Debian. Accordingly, I'm crossposting to debian-legal; please follow up on that list. Charliej, please subscribe to debian-legal to follow the discussion.) Charliej [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am working on packaging a front end for MPD called Pitchfork. I was looking through the source gathering copyright information and noticed that some components are released under the: 1. Creative Commons License Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic 2. PHP License Version 3.01 Will these licenses keep this package out of Debian? I believe the ftpmasters strongly discourage any packages under the PHP License that are not part of PHP itself. The license terms discuss core PHP specifically, and it's unclear whether any non-core PHP package is free under those terms. The CC v2.0 licenses have freeness problems in their terms — search the debial-legal list archives for some discussions of those problems — but ftpmasters don't necessarily agree that those problems prevent the package from entering Debian. -- \ Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? I think so, | `\ Brain, but don't you need a swimming pool to play Marco Polo? | _o__) -- _Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A license question
(Please CC me, I am not on this list) Dear Debian Legal, Could you please comment on whether this license is DFSG compliant or not? I am actually packaging JFTP, and it uses some small GIF images released like this: COPYRIGHT: All images and icons Copyright(C) 1998 Dean S. Jones readme: This is a quick page to preview the icons I am creating for some of my Java(TM) programs. You are free to use them in your programs, but I am retaining Copyright, and they can not be used in any books, CD-ROM's, Web pages, or any other form of image collection without my consent. I ask that if you do use them to drop me some e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED], also, if a screen shot of your application using these icons is available I will add a link to it from this page. I would please me greatly if you would add a little blurb in something like a ``Help about..'' screen like: Icons Copyright(C) 1998 by Dean S. Jones Note that it is used in JFTP, which is a program, so I guess it might be OK. But it doesn't say anything about the modification/redistributability. It'd be sad if this license discounts JFTP from entering main, but I wanted your view for sure. Thanks! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JFTP icon freeness (Was: A license question)
On Sunday 09 September 2007 10:22:55 Kumar Appaiah wrote: Could you please comment on whether this license is DFSG compliant or not? I am actually packaging JFTP, and it uses some small GIF images released like this: COPYRIGHT: All images and icons Copyright(C) 1998 Dean S. Jones readme: This is a quick page to preview the icons I am creating for some of my Java(TM) programs. You are free to use them in your programs, but I am retaining Copyright, and they can not be used in any books, CD-ROM's, Web pages, or any other form of image collection without my consent. I [...] Even without looking at the DFSG, it's pretty clear it's not free if they can not be used in any books, CD-ROM's, Web pages, or any other form of image collection without [the author's] consent. But specifically, this seems to pretty obviously fail DFSG #1, #3, and #6. #1 - specifically it disallows image collections #3 - doesn't allow--or even imply--that derived works are allowed #6 - the icons can only be used in programs, not in e.g. books [...] It'd be sad if this license discounts JFTP from entering main, but I wanted your view for sure. Looking at JFTP, it looks like this only applies to some of the icons, not all of them. The easiest thing to do might be to ask the author to please relicense the icons under a free software license. If that doesn't work, you could always just replace the icons in question with free ones, e.g. from a different free program, from OpenClipart, from KDE or GNOME, etc. There is no dearth of good freely licensed icons out there. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: JFTP icon freeness (Was: A license question)
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 11:44:20AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: Looking at JFTP, it looks like this only applies to some of the icons, not all of them. The easiest thing to do might be to ask the author to please relicense the icons under a free software license. Thanks for the tip. Actually, the author himself has used someone else's icons. So, I have requested him to consider shifting or getting the license liberalized. Thanks again! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CNRI Python License question
Le lundi 25 juin 2007 à 20:17 +0200, Carlos Galisteo a écrit : Upstream source is released under the CNRI Python License [2] but AFAIK, the DFSG compliant 'Python License' is the PSF [3] one. As you can read in the PSF license full text, there's a controversy about the CNRI (1.6.1) compatibility with GPL, and my [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive research gives no conclusive data (all threads seems to refer to CNRI 1.6, not 1.6.1), for which I'm uncertain about the CNRI DFSG accordance. I'm asking here because I guess I'm not the first person with this doubt, and it's even possible there are packages already uploaded (or rejected) under the same license. This question should have been directed to debian-legal. AIUI this is a simple free license with a choice-of-law provision. It is incompatible with the GPL, but looks fine for Debian. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: License-Question (expanded GPL)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cord Beermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi. I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. It's the GNU *General* Public Licence. There's no such thing (afaik) as the GNU Public Licence. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. This requirement is incompatible with the GPL. In other words, this paragraph contradicts the previous one. NOT a good idea in a licence grant. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net I think this has the same problems as the previous paragraph. Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? No distributor with any sense would touch this with a bargepole. Your grant of licence is self-contradictory, and as such it would not be wise to rely on it... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License-Question (expanded GPL)
Hi. I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? Cord PS: Please keep the Cc on the wnpp-bug #421513 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License-Question (expanded GPL)
Cord Beermann wrote: Hi. I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? Cord PS: Please keep the Cc on the wnpp-bug #421513 Hi, It seems not compatible. Please read http://henning.makholm.net/debian/dfsg-bis.html Regards, Ying-Chun Liu -- PaulLiu(劉穎駿) E-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
sphpblog License-Question (modified/expanded GPL)
Hi. I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? Cord PS: Please keep the Cc on the wnpp-bug #421513 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#421513: sphpblog License-Question (modified/expanded GPL)
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Cord Beermann wrote: I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? Yes, it does. Both of these requirements are nonfree, and quite frankly, unreasonable. Don Armstrong -- Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it. -- Richard Feynman http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sphpblog License-Question (modified/expanded GPL)
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 17:32 +0200, Cord Beermann wrote: I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? The license is incompatible with itself, never mind the DFSG. This is probably inadvertent. It might be worth contacting upstream to see about changing the license. If the demand for changes were made into a non-binding request, and the requirements for the graphic and link were dropped, it would be the GPL, which would be fine. (Credit must be given seems to be covered by clause 2c.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sphpblog License-Question (modified/expanded GPL)
Cord Beermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: Does this mean you are the sole copyright holder? Or is this a work derived from someone else's work? What is the license of that existing work? The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. There's no such license. You probably mean the GNU General Public License, version 2 or, at your option, any later version. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. This is an unreasonable requirement; the recipient may have no means of satisfying this, but your license terms demand they do so anyway. It also contradicts the GNU GPL: you're placing an extra restriction on the recipient which isn't already in the GPL. This makes the work unredistributable, because no redistributor can satisfy both the GPL and your extra restriction. Credit must be give to the original author Fine; this is already part of the GNU GPL version 2. and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net This is an extra restriction, and has exactly the same problem as discussed above. Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? It currently is self-contradictory, which means no recipient can distribute it at all. PS: Please keep the Cc on the wnpp-bug #421513 -- \ Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have | `\ to murder a loved one because they're the devil. -- Emo | _o__) Philips | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. [...] First, I think b is not an exception but a restriction. Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html That isn't much different to using the plain GPL with an OpenSSL-like licence - both licences are DFSG-free, but we can't satisy both of them simultaneously without additional permission on the GPL side. Of course a copyright holder of the entire work could still copy and distribute and so on because they don't need a licence but we can't because we can't satisfy both of those restrictions simultaneously. The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. [...] First, I think b is not an exception but a restriction. Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html I think you're wrong here ... (certainly if the entire grant is by a single entity) That isn't much different to using the plain GPL with an OpenSSL-like licence - both licences are DFSG-free, but we can't satisy both of them simultaneously without additional permission on the GPL side. Of course a copyright holder of the entire work could still copy and distribute and so on because they don't need a licence but we can't because we can't satisfy both of those restrictions simultaneously. The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. As, presumably, they do. Hence GPL plus restrictions. I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not GPL, but GPL plus restrictions. The result can't be invalid, because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to what is granted. A GPL plus restrictions is only invalid when the GPL is granted by one entity, and the restrictions imposed by a different one. I can't licence my code as plus restrictions and mix it with pure GPL code by someone else. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:04:09 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes [...] The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. As, presumably, they do. Hence GPL plus restrictions. If it's a license derived from the GNU GPL, it cannot refer to the GPL terms, but must copy and modify them instead. And it cannot be named GPL or mention GNU. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL It's not what has been done by Red Hat. They licensed their work under the GNU GPL v2 + additional restrictions. This is different from licensing under a FooBar license derived from the GNU GPL v2. I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not GPL, but GPL plus restrictions. That is the problem! The result can't be invalid, because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to what is granted. It's not clear at all, because it is self-contradictory. In section 6 of the GNU GPL v2, it's clearly stated that no further restrictions *beyond the ones found in the GPL terms* can be imposed. But such restrictions are imposed, at the same time. A GPL plus restrictions is only invalid when the GPL is granted by one entity, and the restrictions imposed by a different one. That case is not a invalid license, it's a copyright violation, which is a different beast! -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpDZDqvdclXU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html I think you're wrong here ... (certainly if the entire grant is by a single entity) By invalid, I take MJ Ray's meaning as not a usable license for recipients of the work. Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not GPL, but GPL plus restrictions. The result can't be invalid, because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to what is granted. The result can be a license with contraditory terms, as in this case (GPL requires no additional restrictions; yet additional restrictions are required). Since the terms are contradictory, the recipient cannot simultaneously satisfy all the terms of the license; thus the recipient has no valid license in the work. -- \ All good things are cheap; all bad are very dear. -- Henry | `\ David Thoreau | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License question: GPL+Exception
Hi, I'm a member of the font packaging team. Red Hat recently has released a set of fonts under the GPL with an exception about it's trademarks. This fonts can cover the lack of Arial, Times and Courier fonts. We started our work to package them for Debian but noticed that's better to ask debian-legal about the license before uploading the package. You can find the exact license here: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/packages/ttf-liberation/trunk/debian/copyright?op=filerev=0sc=0 Please advise if it's needed to add something in the copyright file or so. Thanks, Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:52:05 +0100 (BST) Alan Baghumian wrote: [...] You can find the exact license here: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/packages/ttf-liberation/trunk/debian/copyright?op=filerev=0sc=0 Mmmmh, does the following exception constitute an additional restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2? | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the | Software in a physical product must provide you the right to | access and modify the source code for the Software and to | reinstall that modified version of the Software in object code | form on the same physical product on which you received it. If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional restrictions). What do other debian-legal contributors think? [1] For a more detailed explanation of the problems that arise from adding restrictions to the GPL v2, see the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html Especially take a look at this reply from RMS: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html and at my analysis: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00309.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp4RXZHH2tNC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote: Mmmmh, does the following exception constitute an additional restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2? | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the | Software in a physical product must provide you the right to | access and modify the source code for the Software and to | reinstall that modified version of the Software in object code | form on the same physical product on which you received it. If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional restrictions). What do other debian-legal contributors think? This makes it GPL incompatible, but I think it's still DFSG free. The GPL says: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. So if you redistribute the Program, you may not impose any further restrictions. Obviously others, like Debian, could not add additional restrictions. However, assuming RedHat is not using parts of GPL software in their fonts, they are free to add addition restrictions the their originally licensed software--as they copyright holders, they can use any license they want. So if they say their fonts are GPL+restriction, the fonts are NOT GPL compatible, but as long as the restriction itself is DFSG free, the work as a whole should be fine. The restriction they've added itself is very GPLv3-esque, so I don't see why it wouldn't be DFSG free[1]. [1] Cue someone who will point out a billion reasons why they think similar clauses in GPLv3 drafts aren't DFSG. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpPTh5fpeTsl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:55:23 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional restrictions). What do other debian-legal contributors think? This makes it GPL incompatible, but I think it's still DFSG free. The GPL says: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further ^^ restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ^^ You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. So if you redistribute the Program, you may not impose any further restrictions. You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. Please see the thread that I referenced in the footnote of my previous message. Obviously others, like Debian, could not add additional restrictions. However, assuming RedHat is not using parts of GPL software in their fonts, they are free to add addition restrictions the their originally licensed software--as they copyright holders, they can use any license they want. They can use any license they want, but if they use a self-contradicting one, we do *not* have a valid license and the result is an undistributable work... [...] The restriction they've added itself is very GPLv3-esque, so I don't see why it wouldn't be DFSG free[1]. The fact that a clause is *similar* to one seen in a GPLv3 draft has *never* been a valid reason why it should be considered DFSG-free. Please, let's avoid drifting away from the topic we are talking about: we are trying to analyze a GPLv2 + restrictions licensing scheme. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpdgX93TJQ4N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a big debate about it. The OP is just going to have to decide, and if the upload the package, the ftp-masters will have to decide what they believe. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp8MoYXHvoMJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
Wesley J. Landaker writes: On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. The text of the GPL is copyrighted. To the best of my knowledge, the FSF is like most of the free software community in generally discouraging the creation such derivative licenses. In any case, the copyright owner for this software really should talk to the FSF about getting permission to use the text of the GPL in a GPL+limitations type of license. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Custom license question (Glk libraries)
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fine. So, as I understand, the only possible problem is documentation, since the license doesn't explicitly give permission to modify it or distribute modified versions. It's only speaking of 'the code'. All the documentation in these libraries is a few README/TODO files, with no copyright information inside. Does this mean that in principle I should either drop them or ask Zarf to mention them in the license? This seems a bit extreme, and I wouldn't like to bother him if there's no need... Personally, I understand the documenation to mean the glk spec. I see no reason why Zarf would want to exclude distribution such as README files. You can seek clarification, but since coders generally look at things like 'Reame' and todo files as more code than documention (Not a manual of any kind), I doubt you really need it. To sum it up: Thius is not legal advice, but i would personally go ahead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Custom license question (Glk libraries)
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: [1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/ Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :) Right :) The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions, as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also incorporate this code into your own program and distribute that, or modify this code and use and distribute the modified version, as long as you retain a notice in your program or documentation which mentions my name and the URL shown above. Definiately DFSG-free. As fo GPL-compatible probably. Strictly speaking even the X11 licence is not GPL compatible, because it has a restriciton not found in the GPL: maintaing a copy of the terms of the X11 licence. However we overlook that normally. I figure if that is ignored, the requirement of including only a name and url is an ignorable incompatibility also. Fine. So, as I understand, the only possible problem is documentation, since the license doesn't explicitly give permission to modify it or distribute modified versions. It's only speaking of 'the code'. All the documentation in these libraries is a few README/TODO files, with no copyright information inside. Does this mean that in principle I should either drop them or ask Zarf to mention them in the license? This seems a bit extreme, and I wouldn't like to bother him if there's no need... Thanks for your answers, -- Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Custom license question (Glk libraries)
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think this is trying to be a shorter licence with the same effect as the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have one doubt: if it's not changed, we can use any means and conditions, but that's missing from the modified permission. Does that matter? Probably not. I see no mention of changing the apps name. In fact all the way I see this licence: 1. If unmodified distribute however you want. 2. If modified you may distribute, but you must reference my name and the URL given. The one caveat I notice is that no permission to modify the documentation is given. However, there does not appear to be a need to include the documentation even if distributing under #1. The licence is even less restrictive than X11 or a BSD licence as you do not need to keep a copy of the enire licence notice in modified forms, but only a name and URI. Anyway, if at all unsure, just ask him. Zarf is friendly enough. In fact his position on the licence, which could probably be considered binding can be foud here: http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/freeware.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Custom license question (Glk libraries)
Hi, I'm packaging a set of Glk user interface libraries [1], which are distributed under a custom license, included below. In my limited understanding this is both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, but I'd like to be sure about this. The libraries are going to be linked against GPL- and BSD-licensed code. [1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/ From the README of the xglk library: XGlk: X Windows Implementation of the Glk API. XGlk Library: version 0.4.11 Glk API which this implements: version 0.6.1. Designed by Andrew Plotkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/index.html This is source code for an implementation of the Glk library which runs under X windows. [...] * Permissions The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions, as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also incorporate this code into your own program and distribute that, or modify this code and use and distribute the modified version, as long as you retain a notice in your program or documentation which mentions my name and the URL shown above. Please CC me on replies, I'm not subscribed to the list. Thanks, -- Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Custom license question (Glk libraries)
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions, as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also incorporate this code into your own program and distribute that, or modify this code and use and distribute the modified version, as long as you retain a notice in your program or documentation which mentions my name and the URL shown above. I think this is trying to be a shorter licence with the same effect as the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have one doubt: if it's not changed, we can use any means and conditions, but that's missing from the modified permission. Does that matter? Probably not. Please CC me on replies, I'm not subscribed to the list. Done. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Custom license question (Glk libraries)
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/ Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :) The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions, as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also incorporate this code into your own program and distribute that, or modify this code and use and distribute the modified version, as long as you retain a notice in your program or documentation which mentions my name and the URL shown above. Please CC me on replies, I'm not subscribed to the list. Definiately DFSG-free. As fo GPL-compatible probably. Strictly speaking even the X11 licence is not GPL compatible, because it has a restriciton not found in the GPL: maintaing a copy of the terms of the X11 licence. However we overlook that normally. I figure if that is ignored, the requirement of including only a name and url is an ignorable incompatibility also. Thanks, -- Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license question about linux drivers
Hi, I would like to know under which license your opensource hpt linux drivers are distributed. Also, could you please include a LICENSE file in the downloadable archives so the license is made clear? thanks in advance, filippo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: License question about regexplorer
On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:48:49 -0500 Bill Allombert wrote: On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues. I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read debian-legal. Bill, I agree with you in disagreeing with that. In other words: well said. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpAyvlGJVBbg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question about regexplorer
On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:53:29 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read debian-legal. People are heavily discouraged from reading debian-legal because it's full of huge amounts of masturbation. Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism. It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as noise or interesting discussions, depending on your point of view, mood, and temperature... but calling it masturbation is a bit rude, isn't it? It's not -legal's job to define the standards by which Debian determines freedom - it's legal's job to determine whether a specific license meets those. And this is what was done last summer with the QPL: it was determined that that specific license does *not* meet Debian freedom standards. I will probably not able to attend debconf 5, but even if I were, I would not be able to usefully participate to a DFSG session, because nobody understand me when I speak English and I understand half what others say. So one way or another, you will not have my input that way. That's unfortunate. However, holding the discussion on -legal guarantees that we won't have the input of many developers. They may provide their input whenever they want to, but we cannot force them to do so. If they don't, maybe they do not care enough or they don't feel competent enough: so they delegate to debian-legal partecipants... What's wrong with that? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp4JmntyuA8Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question about regexplorer
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism. It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as noise or interesting discussions, depending on your point of view, mood, and temperature... but calling it masturbation is a bit rude, isn't it? Absolutely. It's not -legal's job to define the standards by which Debian determines freedom - it's legal's job to determine whether a specific license meets those. And this is what was done last summer with the QPL: it was determined that that specific license does *not* meet Debian freedom standards. No. No, it wasn't. The QPL was primarily determined to be non-free by a specific interpretation of the word fee (there's all sorts of other little issues, but basically nobody outside -legal cares about them). Nothing within Debian's social contract makes it clear that that's the intended interpretation, and as a result it's really up to the wider project to work out what that means. That's unfortunate. However, holding the discussion on -legal guarantees that we won't have the input of many developers. They may provide their input whenever they want to, but we cannot force them to do so. If they don't, maybe they do not care enough or they don't feel competent enough: so they delegate to debian-legal partecipants... What's wrong with that? The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place? Seriously, if you can find references that provide constitutional delegation of these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy about it all. Otherwise, -legal's opinions count no more than any other random set of people. They're generally useful, but they don't determine policy in themselves. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
Quoting Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Florian Weimer wrote: QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve things. Even though the license says this: You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in the distribution explaining this. Is this not similar to placing a restriction that binary distribution must be at no cost, or something similar? Is it OK in this case beacuse it only mandates that access to the source must be at no cost? I know that this OK in the case of Debian distributing the source, since there is no charge for people to access the mirrors, but I don't see how this complies with DFSG #1. If I want to sell someone a QPL program, I can only sell the binary and must give away the source. So is the source not part of the program for the purposes of DFSG #1? I don't mean to be belligerent. I just want to make sure I understand. I talked with Branden yesterday and he explained this rather clearly. The requirement in the QPL is no different than the requirement in the GPL that source either accompany the binary, or that a written offer be extended, good for 3 years, blah, blah, only charge a reasonable amount for copying and all that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I withdraw my question. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:53:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read debian-legal. People are heavily discouraged from reading debian-legal because it's full of huge amounts of masturbation. It's not -legal's job to define the standards by which Debian determines freedom - it's legal's job to determine whether a specific license meets those. I will probably not able to attend debconf 5, but even if I were, I would not be able to usefully participate to a DFSG session, because nobody understand me when I speak English and I understand half what others say. So one way or another, you will not have my input that way. That's unfortunate. However, holding the discussion on -legal guarantees that we won't have the input of many developers. Sure, we can discuss that on debian-project instead. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue) is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last summer, IIRC). This is just bullshit. A few people thinking it's not free does not make it non-free. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:04:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue) is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last summer, IIRC). This is just bullshit. A few people thinking it's not free does not make it non-free. But Marco d'Itri defending it means it probably is non-free. Funny how that works. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: License question about regexplorer
On Sun, 22 May 2005 05:58:41 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote: QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue) is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last summer, IIRC). Based on what has been stated and on http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/regexplorer/regexplorer_0.1.6-12/regexplorer.copyright, Regexplorer seems to not comply with the DFSG. I think a bug should be filed immediately... Regexplorer upstream authors should be contacted and a license change should be asked: possible solutions are a) upstream relicenses Regexplorer in a DFSG-free manner (choosing for instance the GNU GPL, or a non-copyleft GPL-compatible free license such as the 2-clause BSD) b) upstream dual licenses Regexplorer under QPL/GPL (just like Trolltech did with QT[1]) c) upstream adds a special exception and drops the choice of venue in Oslo, leaving only the choice of law (as OCaml authors did with their compiler[2]) If neither of these solutions can be adopted, the package should be moved to non-free. [1] see http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/qt-x11-free_3.3.4-3/libqt3-dev.copyright [2] see http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/o/ocaml/ocaml_3.08.3-3/ocaml.copyright An additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve things. I would say that it would change things from bad to OK! That's quite a large improvement... ;-) -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpGkGzbnFoRk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question about regexplorer
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue) is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last summer, IIRC). There's disagreement over that. Based on what has been stated and on http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/regexplorer/regexplorer_0= .1.6-12/regexplorer.copyright, Regexplorer seems to not comply with the DFSG. There's a moderate number of QPLed packages in the archive. I think a bug should be filed immediately... Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I think a bug should be filed immediately... Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues. How will this be summarised, will it tell us anything about the not-at-Helsinki-for-summer-vac part of the project and which is larger? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues. Have you had a chance to outline this panel discussion in slightly more detail yet? [also, do you know why it doesn't appear here: http://comas.linux-aktivaattori.org/debconf5/general/proposals ?] Don Armstrong -- There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
Florian Weimer wrote: * Roberto C. Sanchez: I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0]. Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective licenses (as I understand it): * libc6 (LGPL) * libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception) * libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL) * libstdc++5 (GPL) * libx11-6 (MIT/X) * libxext6 (MIT/X) And the problem is that regexplorer is licensed under the plain QPL? Yes. My question is this. Is Debian accepting QT3 under the GPL or the QPL? As far as I know, Debian complies with the QPL requirements, so we can choose between QPL and GPL on a per-application basis. OK. So if someone offers a program under a dual license, it is possible to accept it under the terms of both licenses at the same time? Specifically: (1) is the exception for libgcc1 sufficient for regexplorer to link? Yes, as long as you use GCC to compile regexplorer. (2) is QT3 in Debian via QPL or GPL? It's dual-licensed. Same question as above. (3) is libstdc++5 actually GPL w/o exception? No, all source files should be covered by the usual exception. If they aren't, upstream considers this a bug. Oops. I went back and read the copyright file and saw right where I missed it. Additionally, it seems like QPL licensed code can't be in main QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve things. Even though the license says this: You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in the distribution explaining this. Is this not similar to placing a restriction that binary distribution must be at no cost, or something similar? Is it OK in this case beacuse it only mandates that access to the source must be at no cost? I know that this OK in the case of Debian distributing the source, since there is no charge for people to access the mirrors, but I don't see how this complies with DFSG #1. If I want to sell someone a QPL program, I can only sell the binary and must give away the source. So is the source not part of the program for the purposes of DFSG #1? I don't mean to be belligerent. I just want to make sure I understand. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
License question about regexplorer
I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0]. Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective licenses (as I understand it): * libc6 (LGPL) * libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception) * libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL) * libstdc++5 (GPL) * libx11-6 (MIT/X) * libxext6 (MIT/X) My question is this. Is Debian accepting QT3 under the GPL or the QPL? According the FSF FAQ on licenses [1], the QPL says that modified sources must be distrubted as patches, and that linking to GPL code requires a license exception. However, it gets a bit more complex. I know that this has more or less been discussed before [2], but I think the circumstances have changed. Specifically: (1) is the exception for libgcc1 sufficient for regexplorer to link? (2) is QT3 in Debian via QPL or GPL? (3) is libstdc++5 actually GPL w/o exception? It seems that if any of those fails, then regexplorer can't link to them unless it is relicensed. Additionally, it seems like QPL licensed code can't be in main (which may or may not affect QT and any packages that depend on it, depending on how Debian chooses to make QT available), at least under the version used by regexplorer [3] [4]: QPL: 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: ME: Ok. This is not reall a problem, since we distribute source as a .orig.tar.gz and a .diff.gz. This is clearly seperate. QPL: a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software. ME: No problem here either. QPL: b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. ME: Does this mean that the Debian-specific packaging must be QPL licensed? It is a patch modification to the source. I presume that non-exclusive means Debian can continue to distribute the modifications themselves under other terms, e.g., the GPL. But, I think this implies the modifications must at least be dual/licensed. QPL: 4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided that you meet these restrictions: ME: Ok. At least there is a chance to distribute the modified binaries. QPL: a. You must include this license document in the distribution. ME: No sweat. QPL: b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in the distribution explaining this. ME: Does this even comply with DFSG? This would imply that if make a CD which includes regexplorer (which is in main), then I can't charge money for it above the cost of duplication. QPL: c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license. ME: Not sure how that affects Debian's distribution of the package. Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I am trying to wrap my head around this. Also, please CC me on all replies, as I am not subcribed to -legal. -Roberto [0] http://pacakges.debian.org/regexplorer [1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/01/msg00203.html [3] http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/regexplorer/regexplorer/QPL.html?rev=1.1.1.1 [4] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/regexplorer/regexplorer_0.1.6-12/regexplorer.copyright -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL License question
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:56:22PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: The output of gcc is not covered by the licence that covers gcc. That's not strictly true. The license of gcc explicitly permits any and all use of any code generated by gcc, and makes no restrictions on it. There's no answer to the general question of whether a compiled work is a derivative of the compiler; all else aside, it depends on the compiler. It can certainly be plausible for this to be the case. It is lawyer-bait. This is usually not an issue because most compilers have licenses similar to gcc, disclaiming any restriction on the output. Not because it can't be done. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL License question
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 12:46:09AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:56:22PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: The output of gcc is not covered by the licence that covers gcc. That's not strictly true. The license of gcc explicitly permits any and all use of any code generated by gcc, and makes no restrictions on it. There's no answer to the general question of whether a compiled work is a derivative of the compiler; all else aside, it depends on the compiler. It can certainly be plausible for this to be the case. It is lawyer-bait. This is usually not an issue because most compilers have licenses similar to gcc, disclaiming any restriction on the output. Not because it can't be done. A more verbose answer to this question is at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput -- Glenn Maynard
GPL License question
Hello all, A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause. Any opinions of how truly open source this project is would be greatly appreciated: http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm In particular, passages that seem (to me at least) to want to make programs written for QM fall into the realm of derivative works. Seems a bit as if gnu would want anything compiled with gcc (or written in a flavour of C that is intended for gcc) to become a derivative work. Am I reading this the wrong way? Thanks in advance, -Tom
Re: GPL License question
Tom deL wrote: A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause. Any opinions of how truly open source this project is would be greatly appreciated: http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm Others have mentioned this project on debian-legal as well, with similar concerns. See the thread Is this software really GPL? back in October, starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00331.html In particular, passages that seem (to me at least) to want to make programs written for QM fall into the realm of derivative works. Seems a bit as if gnu would want anything compiled with gcc (or written in a flavour of C that is intended for gcc) to become a derivative work. Am I reading this the wrong way? While their explanatory material is slightly biased towards making you believe you need one of their Commercial QM [sic; should be Proprietary] licenses, I think they have the correct interpretation of derivative works. Just as a program written against a GPLed library is (generally) a derivative work of that library, a program written against OpenQM is (generally) a derivative work of OpenQM, and as such, is subject to the terms of the GPL on OpenQM. Furthermore, they acknowledge that they implement a superset of a particular standard, which has multiple implementations, so if your program requires *only* the standard and nothing specific to their program, it is not subject to the GPL. Finally, they explicitly state that nothing in their explanation provides any further restrictions beyond those of the GPL; see the How do you resolve any conflicts between what you say and what the GPL says section. They even seem to be rather strong advocates of Free Software, judging by some of their comments. The only issue I note with their explanatory document is that it occasionally confuses commercial and proprietary, or places for-profit and Free Software as opposing ideas. They do however explicitly note in one point that you are permitted to charge for GPLed software, as long as you satisfy the requirements of the GPL. Their restrictions on code using their proprietary QM license are far stricter, but then any proprietary software is too strict by definition. They place restrictions on the object code built against the proprietary QM, but restrictions on derivative works are quite possible legally; in this case, however, the restrictions are being used for a non-free purpose, rather than a Free purpose such as a copyleft. Overall, they seem to be just like any other company that supplies both a Free copylefted version and a proprietary buy this if you want to keep your stuff secret version of their software. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL License question
Josh, thank you for taking the time to point me to some great reading! -Tom Josh Triplett wrote: Tom deL wrote: A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause. Any opinions of how truly open source this project is would be greatly appreciated: http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm Others have mentioned this project on debian-legal as well, with similar concerns. See the thread Is this software really GPL? back in October, starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00331.html In particular, passages that seem (to me at least) to want to make programs written for QM fall into the realm of derivative works. Seems a bit as if gnu would want anything compiled with gcc (or written in a flavour of C that is intended for gcc) to become a derivative work. Am I reading this the wrong way? While their explanatory material is slightly biased towards making you believe you need one of their Commercial QM [sic; should be Proprietary] licenses, I think they have the correct interpretation of derivative works. Just as a program written against a GPLed library is (generally) a derivative work of that library, a program written against OpenQM is (generally) a derivative work of OpenQM, and as such, is subject to the terms of the GPL on OpenQM. Furthermore, they acknowledge that they implement a superset of a particular standard, which has multiple implementations, so if your program requires *only* the standard and nothing specific to their program, it is not subject to the GPL. Finally, they explicitly state that nothing in their explanation provides any further restrictions beyond those of the GPL; see the How do you resolve any conflicts between what you say and what the GPL says section. They even seem to be rather strong advocates of Free Software, judging by some of their comments. The only issue I note with their explanatory document is that it occasionally confuses commercial and proprietary, or places for-profit and Free Software as opposing ideas. They do however explicitly note in one point that you are permitted to charge for GPLed software, as long as you satisfy the requirements of the GPL. Their restrictions on code using their proprietary QM license are far stricter, but then any proprietary software is too strict by definition. They place restrictions on the object code built against the proprietary QM, but restrictions on derivative works are quite possible legally; in this case, however, the restrictions are being used for a non-free purpose, rather than a Free purpose such as a copyleft. Overall, they seem to be just like any other company that supplies both a Free copylefted version and a proprietary buy this if you want to keep your stuff secret version of their software. - Josh Triplett
Re: Bug: 111609 RFP for cathedral-book; license question
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:26:52PM -0400, Jay Bonci wrote: When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific mention I see of that is at: http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml and http://opencontent.org/openpub http://opensource.org/licenses/ doesn't mention anything about this either These are listed as 1.0 versions. Is there a version 2 that I am not aware of, or are these (somewhat old) DRAFTs considered to be a version two of that license? Or is this just something that I'd have to break down and ask ESR for a copy of. Please reply-to-all, as I am not on the debian-legal list. Thank you, Heh, I just contacted the original ITP'er (Stephen Stafford) last week about taking over the ITP, and he said he'd never been able to clarify the license either. I emailed Eric Raymond about this directly, but I'm yet to receive a response. Sorry for not keeping the BTS informed, I'll forward Eric's reponse if/when I get one. -- Rob Weir [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ertius.org/ GPG keys: 1024D/1E73B7CD, 4096R/3ABDE5EC | Do I look like I want a CC? Words of the day: AUTODIN sniper attack clones BLU-97 A/B analyzer CIDA spies pgptYh2xfoSUs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug: 111609 RFP for cathedral-book; license question
When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific mention I see of that is at: http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml and http://opencontent.org/openpub http://opensource.org/licenses/ doesn't mention anything about this either These are listed as 1.0 versions. Is there a version 2 that I am not aware of, or are these (somewhat old) DRAFTs considered to be a version two of that license? Or is this just something that I'd have to break down and ask ESR for a copy of. Please reply-to-all, as I am not on the debian-legal list. Thank you, --jay bonci -- Jay Bonci| [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: E0B8B2DE| 562B 35DC BE8D 7802 DB31 6423 64D8 790F E0B8 B2DE signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 11:04:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: First, you need to decide whether you want to allow internal business use under your gratis license option. If not, there's no reason to talk more, because your licensing will never be DFSG-free then. Otherwise, the next thing to do is to revise the language on your web site to reflect that policy. Afterwards you should consider taking Edmund's advice and use the GPL instead of the QPL. This is not of immediate importance, because we do currently consider the QPL a DFSG-free license. However, recently there have been suggestions on debian-legal that this was the wrong decision, som it is possible that within the nearish future we will decide that QPL was never free after all and so start removing QPL-licensed software from Debian. As one of the people who does not recall the Debian Project ever making an official statement (or even an unofficial declaration) that the QPL was a DFSG-free license, and as a person who does not feel that the QPL is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above. We won't necessarily be removing all QPL-licensed software from Debian even if we do decide that the QPL is DFSG-non-free, because a great deal -- perhaps even most -- of the QPL-licensed software distributed by Debian is dual-licensed under the GNU GPL. This is because the most prominent piece of QPLed software, the Qt Library from TrollTech AS of Norway, carries that dual license. As anyone who's tried to compile Qt from source knows, it's a large piece of work. :) My hypothesis is that so many people equate the QPL with Qt that when they saw the Qt library move into Debian main, they assumed that the QPL had been branded DFSG-free. In fact, the reason Qt was moved into Debian main was because it became dual-licensed under the GPL, which removed all ambiguity as to its DFSG-freeness, since the GNU GPL is practically universally regarded as a DFSG-free license. Anyway, I concur with rest of Henning's statement. I wish you the best of luck in wrestling with your licensing decisions (seldom a fun endeavor), and if you have any more questions on this subject that you think the Debian community can help you with, please don't hesitate to contact us. -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp3dGJUu08e8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a person who does not feel that the QPL is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above. For the record, and for the benefit of the JpGraph author, I should probably state that after having closely read Branden's objections to the QPL, I have come to think that at least one of them have merit. The problem, phrased in the context of JpGraph, is that if I download the free version and make some cool patches to it available on my website, the language in QPL 3b says that I *must* allow the upstream author to take my patch and apply it to the professional version that he sells under a non-free license. We believe [1] that a free software license should not force people who modify free software to allow their modifications to be used in non-free software. [1] That means: I believe so, and my informed guess is that the consensus on debian-legal would agree with me. This means that the best advice to the JpGraph author would be to consider switching to the GPL. The most significant difference (beyond those needed for DFSG-freedom) is that the patch clause will go away, but after we've dismissed the QPL I don't think there are any well-known free licenses with patch clauses left. (Of course there is always the dangerous possibility of cook-your-own-license, but that is not to be recommended). -- Henning Makholm It was intended to compile from some approximation to the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined, because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available.
Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
Hi again, Yes you are probably right. The whole license thing is rather murky. May I ask you for some advice? My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is * have a clear no-nonsense license * to make the library free for all open source users * to guarantee that it stays free and that the library is not re-packaged and then sold by some other companies. * to be able to have some means of revenue (otherwise I wouldn't be able to develop the library). There are some rather large SW houses that uses my library in their products and even if I'm a very strong believer in public/open/available/free-source I don't necessary think it should be free as in free-beer. When I go to my local, (which I know very well), I don't expect him to give me my beer for free. Those companies using my library are able to save a lot of developing-time/cost and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they would pay a small license fee which would allow me to continue to develop and support the library. The current setup with standard vs. pro-license is definitely not ideal but so far is the only thing I have been able to come up with that seems, to sort of, work. The only reason the pro-version exists is that if the additional features were included as well in the standard version there would be very few persons willing to purchase the license. Ethics in general doesn't seem to be that high. This is a comment I had from several emails. I also had my fair share of mails *demanding* that I send the advanced feature for free *and* give them any support they may need *for free' . Needless to say those mail is straight for the bin Any ides to help me make a better setup ? regards Johan On Wednesday 12 March 2003 18:19, you wrote: [Sent from: 200.75.95.52 (cable200-75-95-52.epm.net.co)] Hi, please take a look at this[1] recent thread about JpGraph inclusion in Debian. The webpage states it is under a dual licenses, but it isn\'t true, opensource users using QPL get an additional restriction[2]. I want to include JpGraph in Debian because there are some important programs which depend on JpGraph (sf\'s clone GForce and latest version of Acidlab comes to mind). What do you think about removing the restriction so it can be really dual licensed? Using GPL and JpGraph license can be a good idea too, companies and advanced users will always want to buy a license because they get more extensions which aren\'t included in standard version. If you need assistance about licensing issues don\'t hessitate to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] there are a lot of experts willing to help. Cheers,
Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED]: My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is I'm not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. The obvious thing to do is to license the library under the GPL to everyone and offer an alternative non-free licence to companies that want to use it as part of a non-free product. * have a clear no-nonsense license You might not call the GPL clear, but it's one of the best known free software licences. * to make the library free for all open source users A GPL library cannot be used with all free software, but it can be used with free software that is licensed under the GPL or a compatible licence. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses * to guarantee that it stays free and that the library is not re-packaged and then sold by some other companies. The GPL is designed to keep software free. It doesn't forbid people from selling copies, but it does prevent the standard business model in which lots of identical copies are sold for a price signifantly greater than the cost of copying. Any program that uses a GPL library must itself be licensed under the GPL and is therefore itself free software. * to be able to have some means of revenue (otherwise I wouldn't be able to develop the library). Licensing something under the GPL does not prevent you selling an alternative licence to commercial users. However, if you do that, then you cannot incorporate other people's GPL code into the library. There may be some GPL-incompatible free software projects that want to use the library. If you license it under the GPL you could perhaps grant some of those projects a special exception case by case. Edmund
Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
Scripsit JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED] May I ask you for some advice? Sure. The current setup with standard vs. pro-license is definitely not ideal but so far is the only thing I have been able to come up with that seems, to sort of, work. We have no problem with dual-licensing schemes in general. Our main problem with JpGraph is that you say on your licensing page that one needs your professional license if one wants to use your software internally in a business. This conflicts with the text of the QPL itself, which *does* allow internal use in a business. Therefore, we're forced to view your wording QPL for open source use (or whatever it was) as a restriction that is *in addition* to the conditions that are in the QPL per se. That is, you are not really licensing under the QPL, but under some artificial QPL with extra restrictions added license. And this artificial license just happens to not meet our concept of freedom, the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Incidentally, for all this to make sense, it seems that your concept of open source is somewhat unorthodox if it does not include the right to use the software internally in a business. That is different from the concept advocated by the Open Source Initiative - see section 6 of the Open Source Definition [1] which happens to be identical to section 6 of the DFSG. You are, of course, entitled to use the term with a different meaning (as the OSI was denied trademark protection on open source), but we suggest that you make it a little clearer if in fact you do not grant the full range of rights normally associated with the QPL. [1] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The only reason the pro-version exists is that if the additional features were included as well in the standard version there would be very few persons willing to purchase the license. There is no problem with your offering a package with more functionality under a non-free license. Any ides to help me make a better setup ? First, you need to decide whether you want to allow internal business use under your gratis license option. If not, there's no reason to talk more, because your licensing will never be DFSG-free then. Otherwise, the next thing to do is to revise the language on your web site to reflect that policy. Afterwards you should consider taking Edmund's advice and use the GPL instead of the QPL. This is not of immediate importance, because we do currently consider the QPL a DFSG-free license. However, recently there have been suggestions on debian-legal that this was the wrong decision, som it is possible that within the nearish future we will decide that QPL was never free after all and so start removing QPL-licensed software from Debian. -- Henning Makholm ... and that Greek, Thucydides
Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * to guarantee that it stays free and that the library is not re-packaged and then sold by some other companies. If by free you mean available at no cost, then free software isn't for you. Free software is about *freedom*, not a near-zero price. One very important freedom is the freedom to package the thing up and sell copies. If you want to prohibit that freedom, then you want something which is antithetical to free software. Those companies using my library are able to save a lot of developing-time/cost and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they would pay a small license fee which would allow me to continue to develop and support the library. It's not unreasonable to request, but free software is precisely about them having the freedom to copy the software without restrictions. Thomas
Re: license question
Michael Zehrer wrote: is the following license ok with the DFSG? If not, what should be changed/added? [...] Permission to use this material for evaluation, copy this material for your own use, and distribute the copies via publically accessible on-line media, without fee, is hereby granted provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. It should give you permission to distribute modified copies. Currently, no such permission is granted. It also violates DFSG 6, since apparently you can only use it for evaluation.
Re: license question
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 01:49:53PM +0100, Michael Zehrer wrote: Hi all, is the following license ok with the DFSG? If not, what should be changed/added? Michael --- /* Copyright (c) 1994-2000 Yutaka Sato and ETL,AIST,MITI Copyright (c) 2001-2002 National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) Permission to use this material for evaluation, copy this material for your own use, and distribute the copies via publically accessible on-line media, without fee, is hereby granted provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. AIST MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR SUITABILITY OF THIS MATERIAL FOR ANY PURPOSE. IT IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. */ --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Note: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD). DFSG 1: The license does not allow distribution in any form except online downloads. No CDs, no non-public distribution etc. DFSG 2: The license does not explicitly allow distribution of compiled versions. DFSG 3: The license does not allow modification and derived works, and does not allow them to be distributed at all. DFSG 4: The license does not fall under this exception from DFSG 3. DFSG 6: The license discriminates against any use other than Evaluation. No serious use permitted. This is almost as far from DFSG compliance as it gets. It barely satisfies the requirements for the non-free section. When a license says it permits use for evaluation, it typically means, that the same software is also available under a different license for real use, typically a non-free, pay-per-user license. Sincerely Jakob Bohm. -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any. pgpPhkSC50PEF.pgp Description: PGP signature
license question
Hi all, is the following license ok with the DFSG? If not, what should be changed/added? Michael --- /* Copyright (c) 1994-2000 Yutaka Sato and ETL,AIST,MITI Copyright (c) 2001-2002 National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) Permission to use this material for evaluation, copy this material for your own use, and distribute the copies via publically accessible on-line media, without fee, is hereby granted provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. AIST MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR SUITABILITY OF THIS MATERIAL FOR ANY PURPOSE. IT IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. */ ---
Re: license question regarding public domain
And now I wonder if License: public domain in debian/copyright is enough for a DFSG free package. Public domain is not a license; it is not copyrighted. The issue is that the author needs to guarantee that he deliberately abandoned his copyright, because otherwise he has copyright by default. Here is some suggested boilerplate text for debian/copyright: Program name was written by AUTHOR. AUTHOR disclaims all copyright in program name and places it in the public domain. (Ask the author to say that that's OK.) Maybe this belongs in a FAQ? --Nathanael
license question regarding public domain
Hi, I really like the cvscommand script for vim by Robert Hiestand (http://www.vim.org/script.php?script_id=90) and for inclusion in Debian (either within vim-scripts or as a separate package) I asked him about the license. Here's what I got: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Public domain. Help yourself. Thanks, bob At 16:33+0100 Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Martin Wuertele wrote: Hi, I wonder what license your cvscommand for vim script is as I think of packaging it for Debian. TIA Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - NO HTML MAILS PLEASE GPG / PGP encrypted and signed messages preferred -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE97NDF+klTdrBujcMRAmJIAJ0dt7tK0nJ5KDnOMFbNaP6U1ZjuJQCguYpN TV5ZaqxDlk7CME0f9iuElfY= =W8id -END PGP SIGNATURE- And now I wonder if License: public domain in debian/copyright is enough for a DFSG free package. TIA Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - NO HTML MAILS PLEASE GPG / PGP encrypted and signed messages preferred pgpfegy9toEmB.pgp Description: PGP signature
License question
Hi, I'm not really used to reading english language licences but I have been asked if JasPer (http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/) would be able to make it into Debian. Since I'm sure someone of you knows much better than I do, is this licence free enough or isn't it? Thanks. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Re: License question
Scripsit Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not really used to reading english language licences but I have been asked if JasPer (http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/) would be able to make it into Debian. Since I'm sure someone of you knows much better than I do, is this licence free enough or isn't it? There are a couple of you may not sue us over patents that may be violated in the code clauses that look fishy but could probably be argued around. However, this is a complete showstopper: | F. This software is for use only in hardware or software products | that are compliant with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). | No license or right to this Software is granted for products that do | not comply with ISO/IEC 15444-1. The JPEG-2000 Part 1 standard can | be purchased from the ISO. This prevents modifying and distributing the code for experiments with other data formats. Thus non-free. -- Henning MakholmI, madam, am the Archchancellor! And I happen to run this University!
license question ..
hi guys, I've got a licensing issue with my new package isakmpd. Okay, so here we go: - isakmpd is from openbsd and so is under BSD license. - isakmpd will use for some times (but plan to drop it in the future) freeswan kernel code for ipsec implementation. - isakmpd need libdes (same license as openssl, as it is the same person who wrote it). As far as i understand, if i link against any freeswan lib (which i can avoid), but use any freeswan header (which define the kernel interaction), or use any freeswan tools in the isakmpd packaging, isakmpd becomes GPL in this case of utilisation. To be clear, my interaction with freeswan are: - need kernel interface headers (pfkey socket type). - need some freeswan user-space binaries to attach a physical interface to an ipsec interface. -- need the ipsec user space command. For libdes, i need it full stop and as far as i can see, it is not GPL compatible, so could not link against it, Angus Lee (freeswan maintainer) told me i could get an explicit authorisation from the libdes author for inclusion in isakmpd without restriction (as freeswan does).. So, my main problem is that isakmpd becomes GPL, and this make it incompatible with the libdes license. As a solution, i can rewrite any bit, but libdes is really optimized and a rewrite'd not make me feel doing something better than what exist (and 'd add another source of bugs). Finally, isakmpd will interract with the standard linux kernel as soon as ipsec is supported (which should happen soon). thanks for any hints on how to solve this, or if there are no problems, helping me to understand the licensing arcana. JeF ps: please CC me as i am not subscribed to the list -- - Jean-Francois Dive -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no such thing as randomness. Only order of infinite complexity. - _The Holographic Universe_, Michael Talbot
OpenCard license question
Hello. I am interested in packaging the OpenCard Framework for use with the Debian GNU/Linux operating system (www.debian.org). Debian contains only free software, as defined by the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), available from http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines I am also interested in possibly using the OCF as part of academic research here at Stanford University. Currently, I have it working well with my Dallas Semiconductor iButton along with the OCF-compatible drivers provided by Dalsemi. There is one obstacle, however. This is the following clause in the license for the OpenCard Framework drivers: Each Contributor agrees to provide condensed summaries of its Contributions to OCC periodically, from time to time on a schedule decided solely by Contributor, either with or without copies of the Program as modified by such Contributions. We are concerned that this clause would prevent the use of the OCF software in sensitive environments. For instance, a company might be prevented from using the framework because of corporate prohibitions on revealing internal proprietary information. Other scenarios are possible, too, such as the inability to modify the OCF in a remote area where communication with the OpenCard consortium is difficult or impossible. Would it be possible to modify this clause, reducing it to a request or a suggestion? For example, the following would be acceptable under the DFSG: OCC requests that each Contributor provide condensed summaries of its Contributions to OCC periodically, from time to time on a schedule decided solely by Contributor, either with or without copies of the Program as modified by such Contributions. Thanks, Ben. P.S. If this does not reach a good person to ask this question, can you please suggest who I might better ask? Thanks again. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanford Ph.D. Student - MSU Alumnus - Debian Maintainer - GNU Developer Personal webpage: http://www.msu.edu/~pfaffben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license question and problems
Hi Hussain, On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:18:38PM +0100, Muhammad Hussain Yusuf wrote: Hi, I have an ITP for a program (gdis, which is GPL) which requires another program (babel) whose license is a bit vague, at least to me. I intend to create binary for babel from the babel source in a sub directory of my package. Why don't you package babel in an extra *.deb and you gdis in another one? Is there any special reason for the merging you intend? The license for babel is: This software is provided on an as is basis, and without warranty of any kind, including but not limited to any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall the authors or the University of Arizona be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages arising from use or distribution of this software. The University of Arizona also shall not be liable for any claim against any user of this program by any third party. (That's it!) First of all, IANDD and IANAL, but here we go anyway... My questions are: 1) Is the above license OK for Debian? It cannot go into main, because it doesn't explicitely allow modification (among others)... It can't go into contrib either, for the same reason. And, yes, the license is really quite vague... It doesn't even explicitely allow redistribution, so it probably cannot go into non-free either (?) IT says [...] use or distribution of this software. I doubt that this is an explicit permission to distribute the software, but I'm not sure, here. 2) If so, is it OK to go ahead if I do not get a reply from the authors? Depends. If you put it into non-free it's OK, I guess... (Only if it's allowed to go into non-free, of course) 3) The new gdis package also depends on the Debian povray package, which is in non-free: I assume that my gdis package will therefore also have to go in non-free? If your package could otherwise go into main, but depends on something in non-free or in contrib, your package must go into contrib... (CC'ed debian-devel, that's where it belongs to...) HTH, Uwe. -- : Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---: | http://htsserver.sourceforge.net -- Holsham Traders| | http://unmaintained.sourceforge.net -- Unmaintained Free Software | : http://www.hermann-uwe.de --- :wq -:
Re: License question about prag
Scripsit Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1) Source code for the entire package must be distributed with any derived work incorporating ANY part of PRAG. is a little vague though. Does he mean that I can not take a .c file and place it in another work? What he presumably means that a derived work must not be distributed without the entire source for the derived work. I agree that the wording is not completely unambiguous. -- Henning Makholm Hell, every other article you read is about the Mars underground, and how they're communists or nudists or Rosicrucians --
License question about prag
Dear List-members, I have started to package a software-package for Debian called prag. It is a replacement for the grap tool belonging to the SysV troff package. Before any further work I'd like to ask you about the license of prag. It's very short (25 lines) and basically just a hand-written note. Yet I am still unsure about some points. Could you please comment on this, or point me to other locations where I could ask? You can find a copy of the original license at http://www.copyleft.de/pub/author/fabian/debian/prag/Copyright Yours faithfully, Fabian
