Re: DEP licenses
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 13:35 +0300, Lars Wirzenius kirjoitti: pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti: I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the Expat, X11 or the modified BSD license. I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't know if there's consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a couple of weeks or so. Done. The change is now in the DEP bzr repository. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a couple of weeks or so. I agree that we should suggest the Expat licence. We're trying to spread our ideas widely in a crowded market, which is similar to the commonly-accepted motives to use the LGPL instead of the GPL. Also, the Creative Commons licences are not all free software licences. Please go ahead, just a couple of suggestion: - please mention why Expat is being suggested, the scenario of packing DEPs together should be enough to convince the reader IMO I'd agree that we should mention that Expat is suggested to allow easy combination of DEPs. However, packing DEPs together does not have major problems, so isn't a good scenario. - please mention the fact that Expat is kinda MIT/X11 with add the feature I forgot here, I feel the Expat name can sound weird to a lot of non -legal readers I don't think Expat has any significant additional feature. Expat is usually used as the name to avoid the ambiguity caused by referring to MIT, X11 or BSD (each of which has used several very different licences over time) and for an explicit inclusion of associated documentation files as Software. However, it's not in common-licenses (yet?). Regards, -- 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: DEP licenses
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:07:07 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a couple of weeks or so. I agree that we should suggest the Expat licence. So do I. [...] Also, the Creative Commons licences are not all free software licences. I personally think that *none* of them[1] meet the DFSG. Unfortunately, FTP-masters seem to disagree with me... Anyone who would like to read further details on my view on the topic could start by taking a look at previous debian-legal discussions[2][3]. [1] excluding the public domain dedication (which is not a license anyway) and the re-branded licenses (CC-GNU GPL, CC-GNU LGPL, BSD, which are externally developed CC-re-branded licenses)... [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00076.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00126.html [...] - please mention the fact that Expat is kinda MIT/X11 with add the feature I forgot here, I feel the Expat name can sound weird to a lot of non -legal readers I don't think Expat has any significant additional feature. Expat is usually used as the name to avoid the ambiguity caused by referring to MIT, X11 or BSD (each of which has used several very different licences over time) and for an explicit inclusion of associated documentation files as Software. However, it's not in common-licenses (yet?). I personally would like to see the Expat license in /usr/share/common-licenses/. Please see bug #284340 [4], which was unfortunately tagged wontfix... [4] http://bugs.debian.org/284340 Big disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp3WEIdCCPtp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DEP licenses
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 14:42:46 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: I personally think that *none* of them[1] meet the DFSG. Yes, you've said that multiple times now. Unfortunately, FTP-masters seem to disagree with me... Anyone who would like to read further details on my view on the topic could start by taking a look at previous debian-legal discussions[2][3]. Can you please stop this? The FTP-masters' opinion is what matters here, not yours. Rehashing the fact that you disagree doesn't help anything. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think Expat has any significant additional feature. Expat is usually used as the name to avoid the ambiguity caused by referring to MIT, X11 or BSD (each of which has used several very different licences over time) and for an explicit inclusion of associated documentation files as Software. However, it's not in common-licenses (yet?). The purpose of common-licenses is not to collect all DFSG-free licenses. The criteria is the number of packages in Debian that use that license, particularly by popularity. Licenses go into common-licenses when they save substantial space, essentially. If someone wants to do the analysis work to show that this is true of the Expat license and it looks reasonable (100 packages, preferrably 200 packages, including fairly widely installed ones -- I feel the most comfortable if at least 1/5th of the systems reporting in popcon have at least a couple of packages installed that use that license), then please file a bug against debian-policy with the details of that analysis. The BSD license currently in common-licenses is something of an anomoly, and were we doing it all over again, it would probably not be there since it usually can't be referenced correctly by packages (it lists a specific copyright holder). But it's not clear to me whether it's worth the effort to withdraw it or change it at this point. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: License --- The DEP must have a license that is DFSG free. I've just pushed that to http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep0/trunk/ (I didn't think that needs any discussion; if I was wrong, it's easy enough to revert). I'm not sure if there's a consensus on which license to pick for all DEPs. Comments on that are welcome. The problem with allowing any DFSG free license is that it may mean that the license for DEPx may be incompatible with DEPy. If a DEPz wants to combine, or just re-use portions of, DEPx and DEPy, the license of DEPz will be quite complex. I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the Expat, X11 or the modified BSD license. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti: I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the Expat, X11 or the modified BSD license. I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't know if there's consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a couple of weeks or so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti: I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the Expat, X11 or the modified BSD license. I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't know if there's AOL consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a couple of weeks or so. Please go ahead, just a couple of suggestion: - please mention why Expat is being suggested, the scenario of packing DEPs together should be enough to convince the reader IMO - please mention the fact that Expat is kinda MIT/X11 with add the feature I forgot here, I feel the Expat name can sound weird to a lot of non -legal readers Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -%- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't know if there's consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a couple of weeks or so. I would prefer to recommend a copyleft such as the GPL, simply to encourage more free works. However, if the consensus is to go with Expat for DEPs, I have no specific objection. -- \We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used | `\ when we created them. —Albert Einstein | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
(Dropping Cc on -project, adding To to -legal. If you reply, please maintain the Cc list) Hi debian-legal, On 29/05/08 at 13:54 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:51:33PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I'm not sure what would be the best practical license for DEPs, so I'm hesitant to recommend one at this point. Perhaps one of the Creative Commons ones? The current batch has some free ones, right? If we really want to provide a default, an interesting one would be a license which requires changing title/authorship upon changes, just to distinguish the official DEP document from derivatives. I've no idea if something free like that exists or not, but in principle it doesn't look like that different from DFSG-free licenses requiring the distribution in patch format (or maybe we can directly go for one of them?). Note that this is not a requirement, as the official DEP document will always be available from dep.debian.net, but as a default it would make sense. We are looking for a license that could be recommended as a default license for DEPs in DEP0. The subthread on -project starts with http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/05/msg00066.html The basic requirements are: (AFAIK) - not copylefted, so we can include the document in another document - suitable for documents - require changing title/authorship upon changes (see above) Could you recommend one? Thank you, -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP licenses
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: The basic requirements are: (AFAIK) - not copylefted, so we can include the document in another document - suitable for documents - require changing title/authorship upon changes (see above) There's really no need to require changing the title, since official DEP can be dealt with by just distributing them with a known site and signing them with appropriate keys or similar, and you can handle derivatives simply by suggesting that they change the title. Could you recommend one? MIT/X11 with minor changes: --- Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work and associated files (the 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 ANY CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WORK 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. Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the contributors to this Work shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Work without prior written authorization from the contributor(s) whose name(s) are to be used. --- Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MIT/X11 with minor changes: When recommending, it's best to refer to this as the terms of the Expat license (of which there has only ever been one version), not MIT/X11 license which is a more ambiguous name (several licenses meet that description, not all of them free). -- \There are always those who think they know what is your | `\ responsibility better than you do. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:12:05 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MIT/X11 with minor changes: When recommending, it's best to refer to this as the terms of the Expat license (of which there has only ever been one version), not MIT/X11 license which is a more ambiguous name (several licenses meet that description, not all of them free). Actually, the Expat license lacks the final no-advertisement clause: see http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt, which is the official URL for the Expat license, AFAICT. Anyway, I would recommend the unmodified Expat license for DEPs, in order to avoid license proliferation... P.S.: Other repliers seem to have forgotten to add the requested Cc:s I re-added them (anyone who feels out of context is encouraged to take a look at the thread on debian-legal web archives...) -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpjZjfAfCLCz.pgp Description: PGP signature
