Re: Package copyright problems

[Jesse van den Kieboom]

Op do, 16-03-2006 te 04:35 -0500, schreef Nathanael Nerode:
> Jesse van den Kieboom wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > As I tried to do an ITP my package
> > (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=347934) got rejected
> > because the copyrights weren't in order. Now I'm a bit in the open
> > because I don't have much experience with having different parts of an
> > application having different copyrights etc.
> 
> Oh.  In the copyright file, you list each copyright, and each license.
> It gets quite long.  It ends up looking like
> 
> Copyright A 19xx, 199yy
> [License notice 1]
> 
> Portions of this software copyright B 19xx, 19yy, copyright C 19zz
> These portions are subject to this license:
> [License notice 2]
> 
> Portions of this software copyright D 19xx, 19yy
> These portions are subject to this license:
> [License notice 3]

Okay, thanks for the information everyone!


Jesse


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Package copyright problems

[Nathanael Nerode]

Henning Makholm wrote:

> Scripsit Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>> My situation is as follows. The application itself is GPL licenced, but
>> some of the code has been taken from the lambdamoo server. The lambdamoo
>> source is copyrighted with the following copyright:
> 
>>   Copyright (c) 1992, 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.  All rights
>> reserved.
> ...
>>  Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply
>>  with all applicable United States export control laws.
> 
> This is a non-free condition.

Looking at it again, I don't think it's a condition.  It's just a standalone
statement.  The actual license is:

"Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works
based upon this software are permitted."

That's the entire license.  There are no conditions.  The remaining items
are simply other statements, such as this claim about the nature of the
law.

In fact, this means that the only thing which *must* legally be included is
the copyright notice and that statement.  The license does not require that
any particular text be included with the software, certainly not the export
control text.

-- 
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: Package copyright problems

[Nathanael Nerode]

Jesse van den Kieboom wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As I tried to do an ITP my package
> (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=347934) got rejected
> because the copyrights weren't in order. Now I'm a bit in the open
> because I don't have much experience with having different parts of an
> application having different copyrights etc.

Oh.  In the copyright file, you list each copyright, and each license.
It gets quite long.  It ends up looking like

Copyright A 19xx, 199yy
[License notice 1]

Portions of this software copyright B 19xx, 19yy, copyright C 19zz
These portions are subject to this license:
[License notice 2]

Portions of this software copyright D 19xx, 19yy
These portions are subject to this license:
[License notice 3]

etc.


-- 
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: Package copyright problems

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:22 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> >   Copyright (c) 1992, 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.  All rights
>> > reserved.
>> ...
>> >  Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply
>> >  with all applicable United States export control laws.

>> This is a non-free condition.

> Surely it'd only be non-free if it said "must comply with United States
> export control laws"?  Outside the US, US export laws are not
> applicable, so the condition doesn't apply.

Are you sure that the US Congress will never make a law that defines
itself as being applicable everywhere?

Even so, breaking the law in USA ought to result in only criminal
charges. To threaten additional civil suits for breach of license is
an additional condition, I think.

-- 
Henning Makholm"They want to be natural, the anti-social
 little beasts. They just don't realize that
 everyone's good depends on everyone's cooperation."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Package copyright problems

[Walter Landry]

"Benjamin A'Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:22 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > > My situation is as follows. The application itself is GPL licenced, but
> > > some of the code has been taken from the lambdamoo server. The lambdamoo
> > > source is copyrighted with the following copyright:
> > 
> > >   Copyright (c) 1992, 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.  All rights
> > > reserved.
> > ...
> > >  Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply
> > >  with all applicable United States export control laws.
> > 
> > This is a non-free condition.
> > 
> 
> Surely it'd only be non-free if it said "must comply with United States
> export control laws"?  Outside the US, US export laws are not
> applicable, so the condition doesn't apply.  Or am I missing something?

US export laws restrict a number of types of software that you might
not think were problematic (hydrodynamic simulation codes).  If they
were enforced, it would significantly hamper the ability of US
scientists to distribute code.  What makes it tolerable is that it is
only enforced against certain, more specific types of software
(radiation-hydrodynamic simulation codes).  With this license,
distributing the first type of software outside the US would be
prohibited, even though the government doesn't actually care.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Package copyright problems

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:34:07PM +, Benjamin A'Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:22 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > > My situation is as follows. The application itself is GPL licenced, but
> > > some of the code has been taken from the lambdamoo server. The lambdamoo
> > > source is copyrighted with the following copyright:

> > >   Copyright (c) 1992, 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.  All rights
> > > reserved.
> > ...
> > >  Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply
> > >  with all applicable United States export control laws.

> > This is a non-free condition.

> Surely it'd only be non-free if it said "must comply with United States
> export control laws"?  Outside the US, US export laws are not
> applicable, so the condition doesn't apply.  Or am I missing something?

Compliance with the law should not be a condition of the license.  The law
already has its own penalties for non-compliance; users shouldn't have to
worry about copyright holders of the software they're using adding to those.

-- 
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/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Package copyright problems

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Benjamin A'Lee said:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:22 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ...
> > >  Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply
> > >  with all applicable United States export control laws.
> > 
> > This is a non-free condition.
> > 
> 
> Surely it'd only be non-free if it said "must comply with United States
> export control laws"?  Outside the US, US export laws are not
> applicable, so the condition doesn't apply.  Or am I missing something?

You are correct.
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Package copyright problems

[Benjamin A'Lee]

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:22 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > My situation is as follows. The application itself is GPL licenced, but
> > some of the code has been taken from the lambdamoo server. The lambdamoo
> > source is copyrighted with the following copyright:
> 
> >   Copyright (c) 1992, 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.  All rights
> > reserved.
> ...
> >  Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply
> >  with all applicable United States export control laws.
> 
> This is a non-free condition.
> 

Surely it'd only be non-free if it said "must comply with United States
export control laws"?  Outside the US, US export laws are not
applicable, so the condition doesn't apply.  Or am I missing something?

bma

-- 
Benjamin A'Lee 
Technical Officer, TermiSoc 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Package copyright problems

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> My situation is as follows. The application itself is GPL licenced, but
> some of the code has been taken from the lambdamoo server. The lambdamoo
> source is copyrighted with the following copyright:

>   Copyright (c) 1992, 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.  All rights
> reserved.
...
>  Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply
>  with all applicable United States export control laws.

This is a non-free condition.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "The great secret, known to internists and
 learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but
   still hidden from the general public, is that most things get
 better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Package copyright problems

[MJ Ray]

Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As I tried to do an ITP my package
> (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=347934) got rejected
> because the copyrights weren't in order.[...]

I'm confused. If you listed those three licences in the copyright
file, it seems fine at first glance. Can you post the rejection
message here or to Bug 347934, please?
-- 
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: Package copyright problems

[Frank Küster]

Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> /**
>   Copyright (c) 1992, 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.  All rights
> reserved.
>   Portions of this code were written by Stephen White, aka ghond.
>   Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works
> based
>   upon this software are permitted.  Any distribution of this software
> or
>   derivative works must comply with all applicable United States export
>   control laws.  This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox
> Corporation
>   makes no warranty about the software, its performance or its
> conformity to
>   any specification.  Any person obtaining a copy of this software is
> requested
>   to send their name and post office or electronic mail address to:
> Pavel Curtis
> Xerox PARC
>  Coyote Hill Rd.
> Palo Alto, CA 94304
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> */
>
> I'm not sure how to handle this:
> Any person obtaining a copy of this software is requested to send their
> name and post office or electronic mail address to

To me, that sounds like "Public Domain, plus a reminder to abide by the
law (which is irrelevant), plus a warranty disclaimer (which is
irrelevant) plus a non-binding request for notification".  I don't see
any problems with inclusion in a GPL project.

> Also my package got rejected because it contains LGPL licenced parts,
> but I don't know which part that is (or is that because I use all sorts
> of libraries?).
>
> Any advice on the subject would be great.

It seems to me as if the problems you have are not actual license
incompatibilities, but an incomplete debian/copyright file, and
obviously lack of knowledge (and care before the first upload) about the
license status of the individual files.

There's nothing special about packages that contain differently licensed
parts, as long as they are compatible -you just need to clearly indicate
this in the copyright file.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Package copyright problems

[Jesse van den Kieboom]

Hi,

As I tried to do an ITP my package
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=347934) got rejected
because the copyrights weren't in order. Now I'm a bit in the open
because I don't have much experience with having different parts of an
application having different copyrights etc.

My situation is as follows. The application itself is GPL licenced, but
some of the code has been taken from the lambdamoo server. The lambdamoo
source is copyrighted with the following copyright:

/**
  Copyright (c) 1992, 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.  All rights
reserved.
  Portions of this code were written by Stephen White, aka ghond.
  Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works
based
  upon this software are permitted.  Any distribution of this software
or
  derivative works must comply with all applicable United States export
  control laws.  This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox
Corporation
  makes no warranty about the software, its performance or its
conformity to
  any specification.  Any person obtaining a copy of this software is
requested
  to send their name and post office or electronic mail address to:
Pavel Curtis
Xerox PARC
 Coyote Hill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

*/

I'm not sure how to handle this:
Any person obtaining a copy of this software is requested to send their
name and post office or electronic mail address to

Also my package got rejected because it contains LGPL licenced parts,
but I don't know which part that is (or is that because I use all sorts
of libraries?).

Any advice on the subject would be great.


Jesse



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]