Non-Free SGML entity files

[stressware]

The package sgml-data includes non-Free files in the
'sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/' directories and the
'sgml/html/entities/' directory under the following licence:

  'Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with conforming
   SGML systems and applications as defined in ISO 8879, provided this
   notice is included in all copies.'

And files based on files with that licence are in
'xml/entities/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986' in the same source package.

Unless 'conforming SGML systems and applications' is broadly defined
in ISO 8879, then redistribution is highly restricted (I cannot check
ISO 8879, because it seems there is no gratis copy).

Files under the same licence are also included in linuxdoc-tools in
the directories 'iso-entities/entities/' and 'entity-map/sdata/' (for
example ISOtech).

Furthermore, files in the directory
'classpath/tools/resource/gnu/classpath/tools/gjdoc/dtd/ent/' in GCC
are based on these files.

The SGML entity files are needed to build documentation for several
projects, I believe.

It seems like it would be difficult to write the SGML entity files
much differently, so it is possible that they are not copyrightable.

Also, I believe that files under the offending licence, or derivative
files are included in other packages, though they might not be
installed.

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:20:21 -0500 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:23:22PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Any other debian-legal regular willing to share his/her opinion?
> 
> Without looking further into it (anyone have a source package I can look
> at?), any license that restricts use to only that of implementing a
> standard (and not modification nor derived works) is not fit for main.

Dear Paul,
stressware2 has already replied [1] with an example of a package
including material under the license under question.
Did you evaluate it? What was your conclusion?
I haven't seen any follow-up from you on debian-legal about this
issue...

As I have previously said [2], I reported a bug against package
fbreader due to an almost identical issue with the same license terms.
Unfortunately, the fbreader Debian package maintainer disagrees that
there is a problem and keeps closing the bug report [3]. There have
been multiple attempts to obtain an opinion from FTP Masters (see the
bug log), but no response yet.
Could you please read the bug log and express your opinion?

I would rather avoid seeing this issue pass into oblivion.

Thanks for your time.


[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/12/msg2.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/12/msg6.html
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/807074

-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpWJtQYtiQdm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

Let me comment as the apparent current maintainer of the sgml-data
packahge.

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:18:06AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> In that copyright file I see an email (did anyone followup)?
> 
> At 12:51 PM 3/22/99 -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:

Adam was the original maintaner.
 
> >Hello. I have the responsibility of assessing the current copyright
> >of W3C DTDs accompanying your specifications, on behalf of the Debian
> >project http://www.debian.org/>. Interesting question Adam!
> >I would think that the W3C is
> >happy to allow derivative DTDs so long as they don't represent
> >themselves as W3C standards? If so, would it be possible to get
> >clarification about the licensing and rights granted for DTDs?
> 
> You are right with respect to our general approach. I suspect that as long as
> the DOCTYPE is different from our own, and they attribute it as a work derived
> from W3C, we'd give permission. Let me bounce this off a few folks here, and
> I'll get you a definitive answer shortly.
> 
> On Nov 30, 2015 10:01 PM,  wrote:
> 
> > [C]an someone reply with a bad source package (or d/copyright file)
> > that we can evaluate in main?
> 
> Here is sgml-data's copyright file:
>  sgml-data_2.0.10_copyright>.
> 
> Here is the source of sgml-data:
>  sgml-data_2.0.10.tar.xz>.
> Offending files are in sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/. Also, files
> in xml/entities/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986 are derived from files with
> the same licence.
> 
> The files and files derived from them are in other packages as well.

I know:
We had netscape in main. (Now, no more)
We had afio in main (Recently it is in non-free)
We have moved many RFC and some of the GNU info to non-free.
We still have sgml-data in main.

I kind of remember some one told me there is a FREE alternative package.

Untill we find out if code in question is copyrightable and there is
good aternmative path, we need to be careful.

Regards,

Osamu

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[stressware2]

[I sent this before, but it seems it did not go through.]

It has been a while since your last response. Have you looked further
into it?

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:20:21 -0500 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:23:22PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Any other debian-legal regular willing to share his/her opinion?
> 
> Without looking further into it [...]
> any license that restricts use to only that of implementing a
> standard (and not modification nor derived works) is not fit for main.

I've just filed bug #807074 against package fbreader.

But there are clearly other packages which include files under the same
problematic license.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgprGPdcPwufg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[stressware2]

> In that copyright file I see an email (did anyone followup)?

The email you are referring to seems to be for files other than the
ones in question; also, the files referred to in the email are under
the copyright of W3C, while the files in question are under the
copyright of ISO.

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[Paul Tagliamonte]

In that copyright file I see an email (did anyone followup)?

At 12:51 PM 3/22/99 -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:

>Hello. I have the responsibility of assessing the current copyright
>of W3C DTDs accompanying your specifications, on behalf of the Debian
>project http://www.debian.org/>. Interesting question Adam!
>I would think that the W3C is
>happy to allow derivative DTDs so long as they don't represent
>themselves as W3C standards? If so, would it be possible to get
>clarification about the licensing and rights granted for DTDs?

You are right with respect to our general approach. I suspect that as long
as the DOCTYPE is different from our own, and they attribute it as a work
derived from W3C, we'd give permission. Let me bounce this off a few folks
here, and I'll get you a definitive answer shortly.
On Nov 30, 2015 10:01 PM,  wrote:

> > [C]an someone reply with a bad source package (or d/copyright file)
> > that we can evaluate in main?
>
> Here is sgml-data's copyright file:
> <
> http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/s/sgml-data/sgml-data_2.0.10_copyright
> >.
>
> Here is the source of sgml-data:
> <
> http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sgml-data/sgml-data_2.0.10.tar.xz
> >.
> Offending files are in sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/. Also, files
> in xml/entities/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986 are derived from files with
> the same licence.
>
> The files and files derived from them are in other packages as well.
>
>
>

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[stressware2]

> [C]an someone reply with a bad source package (or d/copyright file)
> that we can evaluate in main?

Here is sgml-data's copyright file:
.

Here is the source of sgml-data:
.
Offending files are in sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/. Also, files
in xml/entities/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986 are derived from files with
the same licence.

The files and files derived from them are in other packages as well.

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:20:21PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> I'm cc'ing the rest of the ftp-master team; can someone reply with a bad 
> source
> package (or d/copyright file) that we can evaluate in main?

(actually cc'ing them now)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:23:22PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Any other debian-legal regular willing to share his/her opinion?

Without looking further into it (anyone have a source package I can look
at?), any license that restricts use to only that of implementing a
standard (and not modification nor derived works) is not fit for main.

I've seen similar stuff out of IETF-land (RFCs are non-free by default
because of a simialr restriction), and somewhere else. 

I've totally seen this type of stuff in NEW before. I have been rejecting them.

Stuff like Unicode docs, too, IIRC.


I'm cc'ing the rest of the ftp-master team; can someone reply with a bad source
package (or d/copyright file) that we can evaluate in main?

Thanks a ton!
  Paul


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:39:19 +0100 stresswa...@ruggedinbox.com wrote:

> > Please note that IANADD, I am just a Debian external contributor.
> > I don't speak on behalf of the Debian Project or of the Debian FTP
> > Masters: please contact them, if you want to know their opinion.
> 
> How would I contact them?

Their collective e-mail address is , as listed in
https://www.debian.org/intro/organization

> 
> > Among other things, I noticed that also fbreader includes files under
> > this same license:
> > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fbreader/copyright-0.12.10dfsg-10
> 
> This is what one of the files mentioned in the fbreader copyright file
> says:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that they think that the files can be relicenced. Perhaps
> because the derivation is trivial enough?

Maybe they obtained a permission to derive those files from
iso-pub.gml, I don't know.
It's actually unclear to me, as it is not explicitly explained: they
say the file is derived in part from a file with no permission to
modify, so it seems that the derived file is legally undistributable
(copyright violation).
But, as I said, maybe there's more than what is written there...


Any other debian-legal regular willing to share his/her opinion?


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpaDRFyZAmP3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[stressware2]

> Please note that IANADD, I am just a Debian external contributor.
> I don't speak on behalf of the Debian Project or of the Debian FTP
> Masters: please contact them, if you want to know their opinion.

How would I contact them?

> Among other things, I noticed that also fbreader includes files under
> this same license:
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fbreader/copyright-0.12.10dfsg-10

This is what one of the files mentioned in the fbreader copyright file
says:



It seems that they think that the files can be relicenced. Perhaps
because the derivation is trivial enough?

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 07:32:46 +0100 stresswa...@ruggedinbox.com wrote:

> The package sgml-data includes non-Free files in the
> sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/ directories and the
> sgml/html/entities/ directory under the following licence:
> 
>   'Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with conforming
>SGML systems and applications as defined in ISO 8879, provided this
> notice is included in all copies.'
> 
> Unless 'conforming SGML systems and applications' is broadly defined in
> ISO 8879, then redistribution is highly restricted (I cannot check ISO
> 8879, because it seems there is no gratis copy).

I also think that this is a DFSG-freeness issue.

Please note that IANADD, I am just a Debian external contributor.
I don't speak on behalf of the Debian Project or of the Debian FTP
Masters: please contact them, if you want to know their opinion.

> 
> Files under the same licence are also included in linuxdoc-tools in the
> directories iso-entities/entities/ and entity-map/sdata/ (for
> example ISOtech).
> 
> Furthermore, files in the directory
> classpath/tools/resource/gnu/classpath/tools/gjdoc/dtd/ent/ in GCC are
> based on these files.

Among other things, I noticed that also fbreader includes files under
this same license:
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fbreader/copyright-0.12.10dfsg-10

But the awkward fact is that the debian/copyright file states that a
second (DFSG-free) license applies to the same files.
It's not clear to me whether both licenses apply (which would mean that
these files are non-free in fbreader too) or, instead, whether the
recipient may choose which of the two licenses will apply (which would
mean that we can choose the second license and everything is fine for
fbreader).
Maybe a serious bug report should be filed against fbreader about this.

> 
> The SGML entity files are needed to build documentation for several projects.
> 
> It seems like it would be difficult to write the SGML entity files much
> differently, so it is possible that they are not copyrightable.

IANAL, so I cannot say for sure whether these files may be considered
as not copyrighted.
I don't know whether the Debian Project Leader is willing to ask the
SFLC to examine this issue...


Any other opinion from debian-legal regulars?

-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpfwvbwWRXhh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Non-Free SGML entity files

[stressware2]

The package sgml-data includes non-Free files in the
sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/ directories and the
sgml/html/entities/ directory under the following licence:

  'Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with conforming
   SGML systems and applications as defined in ISO 8879, provided this
notice is included in all copies.'

Unless 'conforming SGML systems and applications' is broadly defined in
ISO 8879, then redistribution is highly restricted (I cannot check ISO
8879, because it seems there is no gratis copy).

Files under the same licence are also included in linuxdoc-tools in the
directories iso-entities/entities/ and entity-map/sdata/ (for
example ISOtech).

Furthermore, files in the directory
classpath/tools/resource/gnu/classpath/tools/gjdoc/dtd/ent/ in GCC are
based on these files.

The SGML entity files are needed to build documentation for several projects.

It seems like it would be difficult to write the SGML entity files much
differently, so it is possible that they are not copyrightable.

Non-Free SGML entity files

[stressware2]

The package sgml-data includes non-Free files in the
sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/ directories and the
sgml/html/entities/ directory under the following licence:

  'Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with conforming
   SGML systems and applications as defined in ISO 8879, provided this
   notice is included in all copies.'

Unless 'conforming SGML systems and applications' is broadly defined
in ISO 8879, then redistribution is highly restricted (I cannot check
ISO 8879, because it seems there is no gratis copy).

Files under the same licence are also included in linuxdoc-tools in
the directories iso-entities/entities/ and entity-map/sdata/ (for
example ISOtech).

Furthermore, files in the directory
classpath/tools/resource/gnu/classpath/tools/gjdoc/dtd/ent/ in GCC are
based on these files.

The SGML entity files are needed to build documentation for several
projects.

It seems like it would be difficult to write the SGML entity files
much differently, so it is possible that they are not copyrightable.