Re: License for ATI driver documentation
Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 13:43 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry: > > Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [documentation license] > > > Ok. Here my suggestion: > > > > > > /-- > > > > Copyright (C) > > > > [..] > > > \-- > > > > > > I included your suggestions and changed "documentation" to "software" in > > > item 3.) of the conditions list. Better? > > > > Better. The no-warranty clause should also say "software" instead of > > "documentation". Otherwise, I think you're good to go. > > Done. The latest is > http://cvs.wgdd.de/cgi-bin/cvsweb/fglrx_man/COPYING?rev=1.5. Looks good. > May I ask one further question? I want to release the autogen.sh script, > the Makefile and configure script and the other stuff without any > limitation. The macros itself are licensed under a all-permissive > license (inspired by the autoconf-archive package). Is this > all-permissive license > > /- > > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, > > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright > > notice and this notice are preserved. > \- > > ok for Makefile(s), configure scripts, ...? Or is it better to release > them into public domain? I don't think, that I should claim any rights > on them. This license is good. It turns out that it is difficult to really release things into the public domain in some countries, so an explicit license is better. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License for ATI driver documentation
Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 13:43 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry: > Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [documentation license] > > Ok. Here my suggestion: > > > > /-- > > > Copyright (C) > > > [..] > > \-- > > > > I included your suggestions and changed "documentation" to "software" in > > item 3.) of the conditions list. Better? > > Better. The no-warranty clause should also say "software" instead of > "documentation". Otherwise, I think you're good to go. Done. The latest is http://cvs.wgdd.de/cgi-bin/cvsweb/fglrx_man/COPYING?rev=1.5. May I ask one further question? I want to release the autogen.sh script, the Makefile and configure script and the other stuff without any limitation. The macros itself are licensed under a all-permissive license (inspired by the autoconf-archive package). Is this all-permissive license /- > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright > notice and this notice are preserved. \- ok for Makefile(s), configure scripts, ...? Or is it better to release them into public domain? I don't think, that I should claim any rights on them. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License for ATI driver documentation
Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 00:42 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry: > > Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, the end of the file says > > > > (c) Copyright 2002,2003 by ATI Technologies Inc. All rights reserved > > > > which means that you can't use the text in that file for anything. > > But if you got your information by synthesizing many different > > sources, including that file, you should be fine. > > I used a lot of sources, but also this file. Shall I better still ask > ATI for permissions to use the contents of this file? Looking at your man page, I don't think you need to bother. It would be nice to ask them in any case, though, since more free documentation is always good. > Ok. Here my suggestion: > > /-- > > Copyright (C) > > All rights reserved. > > > > Redistribution and use in source (the preferred form of modification, such > > as > > XML DocBook) and other forms (SGML, HTML, PDF, PostScript, RTF, Groff and so > > forth) with or without modification, are permitted provided that the > > following conditions are met: > > > > 1. Redistributions of source (the preferred form of modification, such as > > XML DocBook) code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of > > conditions and the following disclaimer. > > > > 2. Redistributions in other forms (transformed to other DTDs, converted > > to PDF, PostScript, RTF, Groff and other formats) must reproduce the > > above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following > > disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with > > the distribution. > > > > 3. Neither the name of the copyright owner nor the nor the names of its > > contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from > > this software without specific prior written permission. > > > > THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS > > IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, > > THE > > IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE > > ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE > > LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR > > CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF > > SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS > > INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN > > CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) > > ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF > > THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > \-- > > I included your suggestions and changed "documentation" to "software" in > item 3.) of the conditions list. Better? Better. The no-warranty clause should also say "software" instead of "documentation". Otherwise, I think you're good to go. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License for ATI driver documentation
Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 00:42 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry: > Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I hope you can help with some ideas and also clear a few of my > > questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I hope, you can give a few hints. I'm > > writing manpages for the proprietary ATI driver, which are included in > > the Debian package. You can find the source here: > > > > http://cvs.wgdd.de/cgi-bin/cvsweb/fglrx_man/ > > > > At the moment the sources miss a license statement. More about the > > manpages can be found at Flavios fglrx mailing-list. > > > > http://www.stanchina.net/~flavio/debian/fglrx-archive/msg00925.html > > http://www.stanchina.net/~flavio/debian/fglrx-archive/msg01017.html > > > > 1) One thing I'm not sure about is, which license I should use, and if I > > maybe clash with the ATI license. So what do you think about the latter > > issue? Am I allowed to release the manpages under a free license or do I > > need permissions from ATI or do I need to give ATI a partial copyright > > or ...? To write the fglrx(4x) manpage I used information I found in > > http://www2.ati.com/drivers/firegl/readme0325.txt. Now this file > > states: > > > > /--- > > > Please read the entire contents of this document. Information in this > > > file may not appear in printed documentation or online help. > > \--- > > > > Does it mean, that I'm not allowed to use this information? How do you > > interpret this phrase? > > I interpret "may not" as meaning that the information will not > necessarily appear in the printed documentation etc., not that it is > not allowed to appear there. Unless we are dealing with someone who > has a history of interpreting phrases in a bizarre manner > (e.g. U. Washington), you should be fine. > > However, the end of the file says > > (c) Copyright 2002,2003 by ATI Technologies Inc. All rights reserved > > which means that you can't use the text in that file for anything. > But if you got your information by synthesizing many different > sources, including that file, you should be fine. I used a lot of sources, but also this file. Shall I better still ask ATI for permissions to use the contents of this file? > > 2) I want to release them under a free license and therefor I plan to > > choose a license, which is based on the FreeBSD documentation license. > > It would read: > > > > /--- > > > Copyright (C) > > > > > > [snip FreeBSD documentation license] > > \ > > > > What do you think about this license? Is it DFSG-compliant? Can I apply > > it? Would you change parts (and if yes -> why?). One thing, I'm not sure > > about is the phrase "as the first lines". Normally the XML source will > > look like this > > There are two issues: > > 1) Someone may want to use a different format for the documentation. > For example, they may use LyX's internal format. So I would > change source to read "preferred form for modification (e.g. XML > DocBook)". Similarly, I would change "compiled form" to "other > forms". Ok. > 2) The phrase "as the first lines" is problematic. Someone may use > a different format in which putting the list of claims and > conditions in the first lines is impossible or silly. Ok. I will remove this phrase. > With that said, it looks like you just modified the BSD license. The FreeBSD documentation license is a modified BSD license. > I > would recommend that you just use the BSD license, with a nonbinding > side note mentioning what you view as source and binary. Maybe you are right. I better use the BSD license and modify it a bit for my own usage. > Something like > > Note: Source is here meant as the preferred form for modification, > such as XML DocBook. Ok. Here my suggestion: /-- > Copyright (C) > All rights reserved. > > Redistribution and use in source (the preferred form of modification, such as > XML DocBook) and other forms (SGML, HTML, PDF, PostScript, RTF, Groff and so > forth) with or without modification, are permitted provided that the > following conditions are met: > > 1. Redistributions of source (the preferred form of modification, such as > XML DocBook) code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of > conditions and the following disclaimer. > > 2. Redistributions in other forms (transformed to other DTDs, converted > to PDF, PostScript, RTF, Groff and other formats) must reproduce the > above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following > disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with > the distribution. > > 3. Neither the name of the copyright owner nor the nor the names of its > contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from > this software without specific prior written permission. > > THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Re: License for ATI driver documentation
Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I hope you can help with some ideas and also clear a few of my > questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I hope, you can give a few hints. I'm > writing manpages for the proprietary ATI driver, which are included in > the Debian package. You can find the source here: > > http://cvs.wgdd.de/cgi-bin/cvsweb/fglrx_man/ > > At the moment the sources miss a license statement. More about the > manpages can be found at Flavios fglrx mailing-list. > > http://www.stanchina.net/~flavio/debian/fglrx-archive/msg00925.html > http://www.stanchina.net/~flavio/debian/fglrx-archive/msg01017.html > > 1) One thing I'm not sure about is, which license I should use, and if I > maybe clash with the ATI license. So what do you think about the latter > issue? Am I allowed to release the manpages under a free license or do I > need permissions from ATI or do I need to give ATI a partial copyright > or ...? To write the fglrx(4x) manpage I used information I found in > http://www2.ati.com/drivers/firegl/readme0325.txt. Now this file > states: > > /--- > > Please read the entire contents of this document. Information in this > > file may not appear in printed documentation or online help. > \--- > > Does it mean, that I'm not allowed to use this information? How do you > interpret this phrase? I interpret "may not" as meaning that the information will not necessarily appear in the printed documentation etc., not that it is not allowed to appear there. Unless we are dealing with someone who has a history of interpreting phrases in a bizarre manner (e.g. U. Washington), you should be fine. However, the end of the file says (c) Copyright 2002,2003 by ATI Technologies Inc. All rights reserved which means that you can't use the text in that file for anything. But if you got your information by synthesizing many different sources, including that file, you should be fine. > 2) I want to release them under a free license and therefor I plan to > choose a license, which is based on the FreeBSD documentation license. > It would read: > > /--- > > Copyright (C) > > > > Redistribution and use in source (XML DocBook) and 'compiled' forms (SGML, > > HTML, PDF, PostScript, RTF and so forth) with or without modification, are > > permitted provided that the following conditions are met: > > > > 1. Redistributions of source code (XML DocBook) must retain the above > > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer > > as the first lines of the file unmodified. > > > > 2. Redistributions in compiled form (transformed to other DTDs, converted > > to PDF, PostScript, RTF and other formats) must reproduce the above > > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer > > in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the > > distribution. > > > > 3. Neither the name of the copyright owner(s) nor the name of any > > contributor > > may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this > > documentation > > without specific prior written permission. > > > > THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS > > IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, > > THE > > IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE > > ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE > > LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR > > CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF > > SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS > > INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN > > CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) > > ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF > > THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > \ > > What do you think about this license? Is it DFSG-compliant? Can I apply > it? Would you change parts (and if yes -> why?). One thing, I'm not sure > about is the phrase "as the first lines". Normally the XML source will > look like this There are two issues: 1) Someone may want to use a different format for the documentation. For example, they may use LyX's internal format. So I would change source to read "preferred form for modification (e.g. XML DocBook)". Similarly, I would change "compiled form" to "other forms". 2) The phrase "as the first lines" is problematic. Someone may use a different format in which putting the list of claims and conditions in the first lines is impossible or silly. With that said, it looks like you just modified the BSD license. I would recommend that you just use the BSD license, with a nonbinding side note mentioning what you view as source and binary. Something like Note: Source is h
