Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 22:37:31 -0400, Joe Smith wrote: This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under 17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an essential step in the utilization of the program. Certainly if a program fails to do what you desire, changing it is esential for use of the program to do as you desire. The application may function as meant even if it doesn't do what you desire. If you want to modify a music player into a video player, you're doing more than just making essential steps to get the application to function for you. -Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 17 USC 106 (which 17 USC 117 references) subparagraph b, is rediculous. 1. that is all about US law. Debian is distributed many other places. 2. many people consider much copyright law ridiculous. Sadly, it's still the law and does the law is an ass ever work as defence? [...] Classical copyright is the effective law. It is what more or less existed prior to the DCMA. It was how most people veiwed the law. Most people can't tell copyright from a hole in the ground (and to be honest, they shouldn't need to. Dratted lawyerisms.) Start at http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html It is hard to convict somebody for violating a law that they honestly have no reason to belive they might have violated. [...] Never heard the expression ignorance is not a defence? One would still be found guilty, but penalties less severe. -- 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: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is private modification safeguarded by the DFSG? I think so. I don't. DFSG 1, 3 and 6 interaction. Not really obvious. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
- Original Message - From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is hard to convict somebody for violating a law that they honestly have no reason to belive they might have violated. [...] Never heard the expression ignorance is not a defence? One would still be found guilty, but penalties less severe. Ingorance is not a defence is reasonable for some things. It is only reasonable if a person has any idea at all that there is even a chance that the activity is illegal. If it accepctable only if a person could possibly imagine a reason why said activity is illeagal. If a person has no reason to think that something may possibly be illeagal then there is likely a severe problem with the law. For example, if a law prohibits walking outside (like walking through a town, lets say) durring the middle of the day, ignorance is very much an excuse. There would be little reason to even suspect that the activity is illegal. On the other hand, if the law prohibited this only at night, it is proably a curfew law, and the phrase 'ignorance is not an excuse' may reasonably apply. -- 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: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If a person has no reason to think that something may possibly be illeagal then there is likely a severe problem with the law. There are severe problems with copyright law. Doesn't change whether or not you broke it. For example, if a law prohibits walking outside (like walking through a town, lets say) durring the middle of the day, ignorance is very much an excuse. There would be little reason to even suspect that the activity is illegal. [...] Why not? I see little reason why someone from another culture would suspect that some particular activities are illegal in the town I live. Ignorance is not an excuse. It might bring a reduced penalty, though. I guess posting common myth understanding of copyright might even be a public service, letting others argue that they are ignorant because they believed it... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
M J Ray wrote: Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] It has long been held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a cassette tape from a cd). Maybe you've just worded this badly, or maybe you're relying on some specific place's laws, but my private copying is subject to copyright law. If I am copying for private study, time-shifting, or several other fairly narrow purposes (including making a cassette tape for myself, I believe), my copying doesn't infringe copyright. That's not the same thing as not being covered by copyright. In case you're really curious, this is due in the US to an accidental change in the copyright law in the 1909 Copyright Act. Prior to that, copyright in the US only covered distribution. Unfortunately, the accidental change has stuck, and copyright now covers copying. (Write your Senators and Representative and ask them to fix it, but after nearly 100 years I'm not getting my hopes up.) In countries with a natural rights theory of copyright, it's always covered copying. There may be some countries remaining with a saner copyright law on this matter, but I don't know of any offhand. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] So this license prohibits private modifications. Based on what I see, this was intended to be expat or BSD-like, except requiring that the source be available on distribution. This is somewhat more like the MPL. It can be used in commercial programs but the source for the parts taken from this package must still be available. Based on what I have read on d-l, simple statements like this might be interpreted directly by copyright law, rather than by contract law. If that is indeed the case theuse of the words 'use' and 'modification' clauses are legally no-op. Copyright was intended to be the excusive right of the author to control copying of the work in question. It has long been held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a cassette tape from a cd). Thus copyright has traditionally been viewed as the exclusive right of the author to control distribution of newly made copies (not yet distributed). First sale prevents the control of copies that have already changed hands. Thus copyright only covers distribution. That would make the package free. However if the statement were to be interpreted as a contract, it would indeed prevent private modifications. That is probably non-free. It seems to violate DFSG#5, as it prevents the modification of the software by people unnable to pulish the source publicly. It is also not-GPL compatible regardless of which way it is interpreted, as GPL does not require Public source code access, but only source avilability to the entity reciving a binary copy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
Joe Smith writes: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] So this license prohibits private modifications. Based on what I see, this was intended to be expat or BSD-like, except requiring that the source be available on distribution. This is somewhat more like the MPL. It can be used in commercial programs but the source for the parts taken from this package must still be available. Based on what I have read on d-l, simple statements like this might be interpreted directly by copyright law, rather than by contract law. If that is indeed the case theuse of the words 'use' and 'modification' clauses are legally no-op. Copyright was intended to be the excusive right of the author to control copying of the work in question. It has long been held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a cassette tape from a cd). Thus copyright has traditionally been viewed as the exclusive right of the author to control distribution of newly made copies (not yet distributed). First sale prevents the control of copies that have already changed hands. Thus copyright only covers distribution. That would make the package free. You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work. Even in the US, copyright law still reserves the general right to make private copies to the copyright owner; the law only permits private copying for limited purposes. It reserves even more of the rights to modify the work. European countries tend to give copyright owners even more control over the work. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] It has long been held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a cassette tape from a cd). Maybe you've just worded this badly, or maybe you're relying on some specific place's laws, but my private copying is subject to copyright law. If I am copying for private study, time-shifting, or several other fairly narrow purposes (including making a cassette tape for myself, I believe), my copying doesn't infringe copyright. That's not the same thing as not being covered by copyright. Thus copyright has traditionally been viewed as the exclusive right of the author to control distribution of newly made copies (not yet distributed). First sale prevents the control of copies that have already changed hands. Thus copyright only covers distribution. That would make the package free. Consequently, I think this chain of reasoning is unsound. It also seems to depend on first sale doctrine, which seems to keep getting called into question too. Is private modification safeguarded by the DFSG? I think so. DFSG 1, 3 and 6 interaction. -- 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: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work. WelltThat may be true, but in the US one cannot commit copyright infringment by simply modifying a tangible copy of a work, only by copying it. (After all, if you bought the book, why should the author be aple to prevent you from annotating it? Fist sale should also allow you to sell your commented copy.) Also in general (classical copyright law) there are no real restrictions on private copying, except in the case where you dispose of the original. In that case you must dispose of the copies in the exact same way, or destroy said copies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] It has long been held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a cassette tape from a cd). Maybe you've just worded this badly, Perhaps. Regardless. In general copyright does not restrict use of a work. It also does not usually restrict modification. In general it restricts copying and (of course) copying modified versions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
Joe Smith writes: You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work. WelltThat may be true, but in the US one cannot commit copyright infringment by simply modifying a tangible copy of a work, only by copying it. (After all, if you bought the book, why should the author be aple to prevent you from annotating it? Fist sale should also allow you to sell your commented copy.) This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under 17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an essential step in the utilization of the program. Under 17 USC 117(b), you need authorization from the copyright owner to transfer software that has been modified in that way. Criticism and comment (what I think you mean by annotating [a book]) are protected as fair use in 17 USC 107; functional change and elaboration are not. Also in general (classical copyright law) there are no real restrictions on private copying, except in the case where you dispose of the original. In that case you must dispose of the copies in the exact same way, or destroy said copies. I do not know what classical copyright law is, but that is not the case under any modern system that I know of. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under 17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an essential step in the utilization of the program. Certainly if a program fails to do what you desire, changing it is esential for use of the program to do as you desire. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under 17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an essential step in the utilization of the program. Under 17 USC 117(b), you need authorization from the copyright owner to transfer software that has been modified in that way. Criticism and comment (what I think you mean by annotating [a book]) are protected as fair use in 17 USC 107; functional change and elaboration are not. 17 USC 106 (which 17 USC 117 references) subparagraph b, is rediculous. What good reason should I be unable to create derivitive works? I can understand not being able to publicly display or demonstate, or distibute, or dispose of it in any way except destruction. But not being allowed to create any deritive work?! (interrobang would have been better here, but most charsets lack it. :( ) I mean I should be able to for example buy an unfinished paining and finish it privately for my own satifaction. However that law (unless there is a later exception) explicitly prohibits that as the modified painting is clearly a derivitive work. Besides, barring invasion of privacy, that subparagraph is nearly impossible to enforce. Even with a warrent, investigators are authorized only to find evidence for crimes suspected, not search around to try to find other (unrealated) crimes. Also in general (classical copyright law) there are no real restrictions on private copying, except in the case where you dispose of the original. In that case you must dispose of the copies in the exact same way, or destroy said copies. I do not know what classical copyright law is, but that is not the case under any modern system that I know of. Classical copyright is the effective law. It is what more or less existed prior to the DCMA. It was how most people veiwed the law. It is hard to convict somebody for violating a law that they honestly have no reason to belive they might have violated. Besides as the US is a common law country the primary law is caselaw. If a decision has been made on written law, it stands (in effect, according to convention, not in law), even if it contradicts said written law. The caselaw can only be overridden by a higher court or new written law (again, in effect, according to convention, not in law). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:47:59PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently removed as it was orphaned. I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything terribly wrong with it. Can someone with more licensing-fu than me please tell me what's wrong with it? The license, quoted in full: Copyright 1995-2001 by Muhammad A Muquit. Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this program is hereby granted without fee, provided that this copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. If the source code of the program is modified or enhanced, the source code must be made public and it must be clearly mentioned in the documentation what was modified. THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR Muhammad A. Muquit 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 TORTUOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. So this license prohibits private modifications. -- 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
