License review request
Hello, debian-legal! I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed. I am deadly serious. Link to the full text: http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased (in plain text) http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased.html (in HTML) Thanks! -- Seo Sanghyeon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On 10/1/06, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, debian-legal! I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed. I am deadly serious. Link to the full text: http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased (in plain text) http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased.html (in HTML) In some jurisdictions it is required that any disclaimers must be appropriately emphasised, otherwise they are legally unenforceable. In text form the main form of emphasis is all uppercase letters. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:43:43PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 10/1/06, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Hello, debian-legal! > >I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the > >new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed. > >I am deadly serious. > >Link to the full text: > >http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased (in plain text) > >http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased.html (in HTML) > In some jurisdictions it is required that any disclaimers must be > appropriately emphasised, otherwise they are legally unenforceable. In > text form the main form of emphasis is all uppercase letters. What jurisdictions are these? The only anecdotal explanation I've ever heard for capsturbation in warranty disclaimers, at least in the US, is that someone did it once and lawyers live in a monkey-see, monkey-do universe. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On 10/1/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What jurisdictions are these? The only anecdotal explanation I've ever heard for capsturbation in warranty disclaimers, at least in the US, is that someone did it once and lawyers live in a monkey-see, monkey-do universe. I believe someone pointed out some statute or court case in Maryland or somewhere on d-l around the end of last year (I think it may have been Alexander Terekhov complaining about the lowercase disclaimer in GPLv3) that said that it was required. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On 10/1/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/1/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What jurisdictions are these? The only anecdotal explanation I've ever > heard for capsturbation in warranty disclaimers, at least in the US, is that > someone did it once and lawyers live in a monkey-see, monkey-do universe. I believe someone pointed out some statute or court case in Maryland or somewhere on d-l around the end of last year (I think it may have been Alexander Terekhov complaining about the lowercase disclaimer in GPLv3) that said that it was required. Just searched and apparently Alexander was complaining about the lowercase disclaimer but posted a link to some law about lawyers advertising or something. Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it would be wise to use emphasised text, at least put asterisks around it or something to draw attention. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On Sun, 2006-01-10 at 10:54 +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the > new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed. Will this code be going into Debian? > I am deadly serious. No, you're not. The license itself says that it's a parody. Anyways, I don't see any reason that that license wouldn't be compatible with the DFSG. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: License review request
Andrew Donnellan wrote: > Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence > given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers > recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it > would be wise to use emphasised text, at least put asterisks around it > or something to draw attention. Laws like the Uniform Commercial Code do require that disclaimers of warranty be "by a writing and conspicuous". http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-316 I suppose you could be equally conspicuous with boldface or differently colored text. The problem is, as far as the lawyers are concerned, all caps seems to work just fine. Why use something different? At best, the court will rule it's just as good as all caps. At worst, they'll say you deviated from common industry practice, which confuses consumers, and therefore your disclaimer was *not* conspicuous. So it's not just monkey-see, monkey-do, but more like monkey-worry-about-malpractice. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On 10/1/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I suppose you could be equally conspicuous with boldface or differently colored text. The problem is, as far as the lawyers are concerned, all caps seems to work just fine. Why use something different? At best, the court will rule it's just as good as all caps. At worst, they'll say you deviated from common industry practice, which confuses consumers, and therefore your disclaimer was *not* conspicuous. However, ASCII does not have a code for bold, nor a code for colours. Without all caps it's a bit hard to emphasise plain ASCII text. If the license was always in a word processed doc it would be OK, but that's not always the case. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence > given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers > recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it > would be wise to use emphasised text, at least put asterisks around it > or something to draw attention. I've seen dissenting opinion. It's pretty well known that long blocks of all-caps are harder to read, so all-caps'ing a long disclaimer may leave one party open to an accusation of trying to discourage other parties from reading it. I think it was in something to do with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs, but my office is mostly in boxes just now and a lot of non-critical stuff went in the bin :-/ Hope someone else saw that and can remember better, -- 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 review request
On Sunday 01 October 2006 01:58, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Laws like the Uniform Commercial Code do require that disclaimers > of warranty be "by a writing and conspicuous". > http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-316 Just a quick chirp from a d-l lurker with a JD that the above is a pretty common concept in consumer protection type laws and, as referenced, the UCC. Of course, there is discussion about what is "conspicuous," but it's not really a very litigated topic. The key is the text be distinguishable from the rest of the license. I did some focus group research for Microsoft a few years back where they were experimenting with converting their licenses to regular text and using boxes for "conspicuous" text. I, and the research group, felt they were pretty effective. I think you're pretty stuck with ASCII though... maybe you could get away with some fancy ASCII art. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: License review request
Sean Kellogg wrote: > Just a quick chirp from a d-l lurker with a JD that the above is a pretty > common concept in consumer protection type laws and, as referenced, the UCC. Thanks for your input. > I did some focus group research for Microsoft a few years back where > they were experimenting with converting their licenses to regular > text and using boxes for "conspicuous" text. I, and the research > group, felt they were pretty effective. Did you check with the Legal group? I've seen lots of common-senes solutions to this type of legal issue, and somehow it is very hard to get beyond the "but everyone's been doing it for 20+ years". I once tried something like: "This program is WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY and is provided AS-IS, with ALL LIABILITY to be assumed BY YOU." The other side's lawyer just put it in all caps "because you're not supposed to have lowercase in disclaimers". Well, that at least takes care of their "all caps is unreadable" argument. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
Those links are dead for me. I found some other urls in /misc -- are they the same license? (in the future, please include the full text of licenses in the body of email requests -- urls often change, but debian-legal is archived all over the place) http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/misc/lowercased http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/misc/lowercased.html Full Text: The Lowercased License Preamble The licenses for most software include a clause spelled in all uppercase letters. By contrast, the Lowercased License includes a clause spelled in all lowercase letters. For the purpose of interpreting this license, the clause spelled in all lowercase letters should be interpreted in the same way assuming it was spelled in all uppercase letters. This license has two purposes. One is to allow you to use the work, to distribute the work, to modify the work, and to distribute the modifed work. The other is to mock and parody other licenses including a clause spelled in all uppercase letters. The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification follow. Terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work, to deal in the work without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the work, and to permit persons to whom the work is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the work. the work 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 work or the use or other dealings in the work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Andrew Donnellan wrote: >> Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence >> given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers >> recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it >> would be wise to use emphasised text, at least put asterisks around it >> or something to draw attention. > > Laws like the Uniform Commercial Code do require that disclaimers > of warranty be "by a writing and conspicuous". > http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-316 > > I suppose you could be equally conspicuous with boldface or > differently colored text. Hmm. I'd really think conspicuous is more about *placement* than emphasis. A warranty disclaimer in ALL CAPS subtly located on the bottom of the package is inconspicuous; one in any form of text located front and center on the package is conspicuous. Sigh. Thinking about this, this means putting your warranty disclaimer in the license, which only a small percentage of recipients even read, is probably inconspicuous by nature. > The problem is, as far as the lawyers > are concerned, all caps seems to work just fine. Why use > something different? At best, the court will rule it's just > as good as all caps. At worst, they'll say you deviated from > common industry practice, which confuses consumers, and therefore > your disclaimer was *not* conspicuous. Well, when someone wins a court case invalidating a disclaimer because all caps are unreadable it'll change then, I guess. :-/ > So it's not just monkey-see, monkey-do, but more like > monkey-worry-about-malpractice. So "common industry practice" is the reason -- that sort of makes sense, even though it's unutterably stupid. It seems like any disclaimer in the *MIT* license would be relatively conspicuous, seeing as how it's more text than the whole rest of the license. In contrast, I'd expect any disclaimer tucked on page nine of a ten-page-long license to be found inconspicuous. And lawyers do *THAT* all the time. :-P > Arnoud > -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Sean Kellogg wrote: >> Just a quick chirp from a d-l lurker with a JD that the above is a pretty >> common concept in consumer protection type laws and, as referenced, the >> UCC. > > Thanks for your input. > >> I did some focus group research for Microsoft a few years back where >> they were experimenting with converting their licenses to regular >> text and using boxes for "conspicuous" text. I, and the research >> group, felt they were pretty effective. > > Did you check with the Legal group? I've seen lots of common-senes > solutions to this type of legal issue, and somehow it is very hard > to get beyond the "but everyone's been doing it for 20+ years". Probably you'd have to have a court case proving that all-caps does not make for conspicuous. :-( > I once tried something like: "This program is WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY > and is provided AS-IS, with ALL LIABILITY to be assumed BY YOU." > The other side's lawyer just put it in all caps "because you're > not supposed to have lowercase in disclaimers". Well, that at > least takes care of their "all caps is unreadable" argument. Yeah, actually your version is much more conspicuous, using the ordinary meaning of the word, than the unreadable all-caps version. :-/ Huge all-caps hunks make my eyes slide right over; it looks sort of like bad ASCII art. > > Arnoud > -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Greetings,
I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
itself considers it "open source", but I feel I am not qualified to
make a determination.
2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail,
which is wholly non-free. Even if the license is clean, does this
make the software part of the non-free archive as well? I guess
theoretically you could write Free software that would interface with
magic-smtpd...
3. More of a technical packaging question, but as long as I'm here...
Since magic-smtpd basically requires qmail, and qmail technically
doesn't exist within Debian (you get the qmail-src package and run
build-qmail to build your own local qmail .deb), will having a
Depends: qmail (but it doesn't Build-Depends: qmail) be a problem to
the Debian package system? Would I have to Recommends: qmail instead?
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Finnie
[0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=296037
[1] http://www.linuxmagic.com/opensource/magicmail/magic-smtpd/
[2] http://www.linuxmagic.com/opensource/licensing/FSCL.txt
--
Our Free Source Code License
Version 1.0 - April 17, 2001
NOTE! Many of LinuxMagic's Software's are released under the GPL, or
Proprietary Licence, instead of this license (FSCL), so please read
the specific CopyRight Notice in each Software Package.
General Note: This License is in use to ensure that LinuxMagic Inc. or
Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd., the Copyright holder(s), maintain
some level of control over the modifications of the source code, and
it's use. In general, this copyright notice is used to ensure that
distribution is free, and the source code is made available to it's
users. For questions on our Licensing Policies, contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Parts of this License
created based on the Apple Public Software License.
Please read this License carefully before downloading or using this
software. By downloading or using this software, you are agreeing to
be bound by the terms of this License. If you do not or cannot agree
to the terms of this License, please do not download or use the
software.
1. General; Definitions. This License applies to any program or other
work which LinuxMagic Inc. or Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. ("THE
WIZARDS") make publicly available and which contain a notice placed by
"THE WIZARDS" identifying such program or work as "Original Code" and
stating that it is subject to the terms of this Free Source Code
License version 1.0 (or subsequent version thereof) ("License"). As
used in this License:
1.1 "Applicable Patent Rights" mean:
(a) in the case where THE WIZARDS are the grantor of rights,
(i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter
acquired, owned by
or assigned to THE WIZARDS and
(ii) that cover subject matter contained in the
Original Code, but
only to the extent necessary to use, reproduce and/or distribute the
Original Code without infringement; and
(b) in the case where You are the grantor of rights,
(i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter
acquired, owned by
or assigned to You and
(ii) that cover subject matter in Your Modifications,
taken alone
or in combination with Original Code.
1.2 "Contributor" means any person or entity that creates or
contributes to the creation of Modifications.
1.3 "Covered Code" means the Original Code, Modifications, the
combination of Original Code and any Modifications, and/or any
respective portions thereof.
1.4 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code
other than for Your internal research and development (R&D) and/or
Personal Use, and includes without limitation, any and all internal
use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or
organization except for R&D use and/or Personal Use, as well as direct
or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any
third party in any form or manner.
1.5 "Larger Work" means a work which combines Covered Code or
portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License.
1.6 "Modifications" mean any addition to, deletion from, and/or
change to, the substance and/or structure of the Original Code, any
previous Modifications, the combination of Original Code and any
previous Modifications, and/or any respective portions thereof. When
code is released as a series of files, a Modification is: (a) any
addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing Covered
Code; and/or (b) any new file or other representation of computer
program statements th
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:04:28PM -0700, Ryan Finnie wrote: > Greetings, > > I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some > help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here: > > 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the > OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company > itself considers it "open source", but I feel I am not qualified to > make a determination. > > 2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail, > which is wholly non-free. Even if the license is clean, does this > make the software part of the non-free archive as well? I guess > theoretically you could write Free software that would interface with > magic-smtpd... > Maybe contrib. If it is deemed to be free and then depends on non-free software to be functional, it would go into contrib. > > 13.6 Dispute Resolution. Any litigation or other dispute resolution > between You and THE WIZARDS relating to this License shall take place > in the Province of British Columbia, and You and THE WIZARDS hereby > consent to the personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, the state and > federal courts within that Province with respect to this License. The > application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the > International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. > > 13.7 Entire Agreement; Governing Law. This License constitutes the > entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject > matter hereof. This License shall be governed by the laws of Canada > and the Provncie of British Columbia, except that body of British > Columbia law concerning conflicts of law. Where You are located in > the province of Quebec, Canada, the following clause applies: The > parties hereby confirm that they have requested that this License and > all related documents be drafted in English. Les parties ont exigé que > le présent contrat et tous les documents connexes soient rédigés en > anglais. > I'm no legal expert, but I seem to recall that these type of venue selection clauses make the licenses non-free. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
"Ryan Finnie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail, > which is wholly non-free. Can it perform its function in the absence of qmail? Perhaps in the presence of another MTA which is free? > Even if the license is clean, does this make the software part of > the non-free archive as well? The 'contrib' archive exists for free software that depends on non-free software. > I guess theoretically you could write Free software that would > interface with magic-smtpd... If that is ever the case, the package would at that point no longer be prohibited from 'main' for this. Another possibility is to modify the program so that it performs a useful function with any MTA, at which point qmail is merely one of the possible dependencies. -- \"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to tell the truth | `\and expose lies." -- Noam Chomsky | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with: > 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the > OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company > itself considers it "open source", but I feel I am not qualified to > make a determination. I will comment on it below. Summary: I'd upload to non-free. > 2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail, > which is wholly non-free. Even if the license is clean, does this > make the software part of the non-free archive as well? [...] I don't think so, but it depends how closely it is tied into qmail. If it requires parts of qmail to run, it is at best contrib. However, it's licence seems clearly non-free to me. > 3. More of a technical packaging question, but as long as I'm here... I think others have answered this well. > [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=296037 Please add a pointer to this thread there. Now, a quick review: > Our Free Source Code License > > Version 1.0 - April 17, 2001 > > NOTE! Many of LinuxMagic's Software's are released under the GPL, [...] The licence ha's 'several grocer's apo'strophe's. > [...] Parts of this License > created based on the Apple Public Software License. First warning sign: there's stuff under APSL in non-free, according to the old list on http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ Other relevant references to APSL 2.0 I found: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00101.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html > Please read this License carefully before downloading or using this > software. By downloading or using this software, you are agreeing to > be bound by the terms of this License. [...] At least here, I don't need a copyright licence for some use of the software. > 1.1 "Applicable Patent Rights" mean: Second warning sign: combined copyright and patent licence. May terminate abruptly, or let US patent law reach non-swpat places. > 2.1 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and distribute > Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal > research and development and/or Personal Use, provided that in each > instance: Again, at least here, I don't need a licence for private study and so on, but we have to meet these terms for other uses in 2.2 and so on, so let's still review them: > (a) You must retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the > copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of THE WIZARDS > as they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in > the Original Code that refer to this License; and OK, but watch out for excessive notices and disclaimers. > (b) You must include a copy of this License with every copy of > Source Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute, and You > may not offer or impose any terms on such Source Code that alter or > restrict this License or the recipients' rights hereunder, except as > permitted under Section 6. Absolutely fine, as far as I can tell. > 2.2 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and Deploy > Covered Code, provided that in each instance: > > (a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect > to the Source Code of the Covered Code; > > (b) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the > notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your > Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that You changed the files and the date of any change; OK, but watch out for excessive Exhibit A notices. > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications > publicly available under the terms of this License, including the > license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy > the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial > Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the > Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. > download from a web site); and This looks like forced *public* availability and a 12-month retainer, which I think is both a significant cost (so not free redistribution) and maybe a practical problem. > (d) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, > You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in > related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is > available under the terms of this License with information on how and > where to obtain such Source Code. OK, depending on how "related documentation" is interpreted. > 3. Your Grants. In consideration of, and as a condition to, the > licenses granted to You under this License: > > (a) You hereby grant to THE WIZARDS and all third parties a > non-exclusive, royalty-free license, under Your Applicable Patent > Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) > owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, > modify, d
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with: > > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications > > publicly available under the terms of this License, including the > > license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy > > the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial > > Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the > > Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. > > download from a web site); and > > This looks like forced *public* availability and a 12-month retainer, > which I think is both a significant cost (so not free redistribution) > and maybe a practical problem. If you need to make any modifications, then with this clause, I don't think that it can even be uploaded to non-free. Debian does not insure that every version ever distributed will be available for 12 months. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Walter, Thank you for your comments (everybody else too). Sorry for not following up sooner; please see question below. On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with: > > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications > > publicly available under the terms of this License, including the > > license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy > > the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial > > Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the > > Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. > > download from a web site); and > > This looks like forced *public* availability and a 12-month retainer, > which I think is both a significant cost (so not free redistribution) > and maybe a practical problem. If you need to make any modifications, then with this clause, I don't think that it can even be uploaded to non-free. Debian does not insure that every version ever distributed will be available for 12 months. How does this differ for the GPL's section 3(b) three-year clause? At this point, the feeling seems to be that software that uses this license cannot even be uploaded to non-free. If that is the case, I will make an effort to contact LinuxMagic and ask them if they can re-license magic-smtpd under the GPL (it looks like some of their other software is GPL-licensed), and/or ask them to contact debian-legal to discuss what can be done to make it possible to include magic-smtpd with Debian. Again, thanks for the input. Ryan Finnie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Hello, On Monday 16 October 2006, à 00:53:36, Ryan Finnie wrote: > On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with: > >> > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications > >> > publicly available under the terms of this License, including the > >> > license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy > >> > the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial > >> > Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the > >> > Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. > >> > download from a web site); and > >> > >> This looks like forced *public* availability and a 12-month retainer, > >> which I think is both a significant cost (so not free redistribution) > >> and maybe a practical problem. > > > >If you need to make any modifications, then with this clause, I don't > >think that it can even be uploaded to non-free. Debian does not > >insure that every version ever distributed will be available for 12 > >months. > > How does this differ for the GPL's section 3(b) three-year clause? There is no differences except that GPL section 3 requires 3a *or* 3b *or* 3c to be respected. Debian do not respect the three-year clause but the 3a alternative. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Ryan Finnie wrote: > On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This looks like forced *public* availability and a 12-month > >> retainer, which I think is both a significant cost (so not free > >> redistribution) and maybe a practical problem. > > > >If you need to make any modifications, then with this clause, I don't > >think that it can even be uploaded to non-free. Debian does not > >insure that every version ever distributed will be available for 12 > >months. > > How does this differ for the GPL's section 3(b) three-year clause? The critical difference is that Debian doesn't distribute under 3b; we distribute under 3a. So long as there is a DFSG compliant path through the license, additional permissions granted by the license are fine. Don Armstrong -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean 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 review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Ryan Finnie wrote: > Greetings, > > I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some > help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here: > > 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the > OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company > itself considers it "open source", but I feel I am not qualified to > make a determination. My GOD. It's EXTREMELY LONG. It has several non-free requirements: (1) Forced distribution. If you Deploy to anyone, you must make changes publicly available. Fails dissident test. (2) Choice-of-venue. Fails "force people to fly to Vancouver" test. (3) The notice in exhibit A is false: you do not agree to this license by "using" the software. Forces the display of false notices. There are several requirements, like the "Wizards get the right to use all your modifications" one, which are free requirements but obnoxious. Incidentally, the license text itself seems to be a copyright violation, since it lifts text from the Apple Public Software License, which IIRC isn't licensed for modification. > 2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail, > which is wholly non-free. Even if the license is clean, does this > make the software part of the non-free archive as well? That would make it 'contrib', but it's non-free, so don't worry about it. > I guess > theoretically you could write Free software that would interface with > magic-smtpd... > > 3. More of a technical packaging question, but as long as I'm here... > Since magic-smtpd basically requires qmail, and qmail technically > doesn't exist within Debian (you get the qmail-src package and run > build-qmail to build your own local qmail .deb), will having a > Depends: qmail (but it doesn't Build-Depends: qmail) be a problem to > the Debian package system? Would I have to Recommends: qmail instead? No, you can Depends: on out-of-Debian stuff if your package is "contrib" or "non-free". > Thank you for your time, > Ryan Finnie -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Ryan Finnie wrote: > Walter, > > Thank you for your comments (everybody else too). Sorry for not > following up sooner; please see question below. > > On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with: >> > > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications >> > > publicly available under the terms of this License, including the >> > > license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you >> > > Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of >> > > initial Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably >> > > distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications >> > > electronically (e.g. download from a web site); and >> > >> > This looks like forced *public* availability and a 12-month retainer, >> > which I think is both a significant cost (so not free redistribution) >> > and maybe a practical problem. >> >> If you need to make any modifications, then with this clause, I don't >> think that it can even be uploaded to non-free. Debian does not >> insure that every version ever distributed will be available for 12 >> months. > > How does this differ for the GPL's section 3(b) three-year clause? Debian doesn't distribute under 3(b), it distributes under 3(a). > At this point, the feeling seems to be that software that uses this > license cannot even be uploaded to non-free. Yes. :-( > If that is the case, I > will make an effort to contact LinuxMagic and ask them if they can > re-license magic-smtpd under the GPL (it looks like some of their > other software is GPL-licensed), and/or ask them to contact > debian-legal to discuss what can be done to make it possible to > include magic-smtpd with Debian. > > Again, thanks for the input. > > Ryan Finnie -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
