Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Benjamin Cutler wrote: > There's a piece of software called "acc" I'd like to package up and > possibly include in Debian (along with some other tools that complement > it, and are under seperate, DSFG-free licenses, so they're not an > issue), but the included licenses are problematic at best. I've attached > them below. The problem is that the first license is pretty obviously > complete bunk, because it sounds like a purchased program, not a piece > of source code released to the public. The second license seems to be > less restrictive, but it's pretty vague at the same time. I already > received one opinion that it's pretty much impossible to include this > with Debian because of the first license, but I'm wondering if anybody > has any advice on if this is the sort of issue that we could "dance > around", though I'm guessing it's not. Barring that, is there any way of > including this in Debian without receiving a new license from Raven? > I've already attempted to contact them with no luck. It appears to me that the first attachment "eula.txt" is the license, and the second attachment "readme.txt" is just a readme file, which happens to contain a loose interpretation of the license by a non-lawyer. However, neither the original license nor the interpretation is a Free Software license. - Josh Triplett
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 08:03:29PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > >> > Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! > >> FWIW, The two licenses were in two different MIME attachments. Mutt shows >> this inline. Is your mailer playing tricks on you? > > Hopefully my mailer isn't involved, but gnus seems to be playing > tricks on me. It *removes* MIME markup, concatenates the result, and > does its best to hide from the user that the markup has ever been > there. It depends on how the MIME attachment is done. Sometimes it is correct to display all the parts concatenated, e.g. if the message was split because more than one character set was required. If you suspect there is MIME involved you can always use "K b" to add the usual tags for each MIME part. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 08:03:29PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! > FWIW, The two licenses were in two different MIME attachments. Mutt shows > this inline. Is your mailer playing tricks on you? Hopefully my mailer isn't involved, but gnus seems to be playing tricks on me. It *removes* MIME markup, concatenates the result, and does its best to hide from the user that the markup has ever been there. Hmm, perhaps I should try upgrading it to gnus/unstable. No, not possible, depends on (x)emacs21 rather than emacsen. Sigh. -- Henning Makholm "I consider the presence of the universe to be a miracle. The universe and everything in it. Can you deny it?"
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Henning Makholm wrote: Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! Dunno why it did that, I just attached em at the end... strange.
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 08:03:29PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! FWIW, The two licenses were in two different MIME attachments. Mutt shows this inline. Is your mailer playing tricks on you? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm wrote: > > I have read through your message several times, but did not find any > > "second license". Did you forget to paste it in? > Would I be right in saying that this is the second license? Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! -- 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."
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Benjamin Cutler wrote: > is there any way of > including this in Debian without receiving a new license from Raven? No. Period. The program appears to be licensed under two licenses; if so, this means you can use whichever one you prefer. The first one is obviously non-free. The second one, however, (assuming it's a complete valid license, since it is pretty vague) is non-free also. >Activision and Raven are releasing this code for people to learn from and >play with. Well, OK, that appears to be a license to use it to "learn from" and "play with", but not anything else. >The code retains its original copyright and can not be used for profit, To be DFSG-free, you *must* be allowed to use it for profit. >any work released using this code must contain credit for it. This is fine. > I've already attempted to contact them with no luck. That's too bad. :-( Maybe you can wait for the copyright to expire. ;-) (Joke) -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:46:48PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: >> Well, I didn't do the mods myself, so it's not really any work lost on >> my part. Do you think attempting to contact Activision would be any help >> at all? > > I have no idea. If you do, you should probably seek advice from the > list of how best to approach that. (I don't have any recommendations, > myself; it's not something I'm particularly good at.) Start by contacting the guy who issued the second 'license'. Mention that you want to be legally correct, and that you want to redistribute modified versions to other people, and let them do the same, but that you don't think you have explicit permisison to do that, and copyright law being what it is these days, you aren't comfortable distributing without that. At least you have a decent chance of a getting a license suitable for non-free with that sort of request. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Benjamin Cutler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The problem is that the first license is pretty obviously complete bunk, because it sounds like a purchased program, not a piece of source code released to the public. The second license seems to be less restrictive, but it's pretty vague at the same time. I have read through your message several times, but did not find any "second license". Did you forget to paste it in? Would I be right in saying that this is the second license? Activision and Raven are releasing this code for people to learn from and play with. The code retains its original copyright and can not be used for profit, any work released using this code must contain credit for it. Issues: this is set up for a watcom makefile. it should not be difficult to convert for VC, or whatever. This is not supported software. But i might be able to a tech question here and there -- Lewis Jardine IANAL IANADD
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Scripsit Benjamin Cutler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The problem is that the first license is pretty obviously complete > bunk, because it sounds like a purchased program, not a piece of > source code released to the public. The second license seems to be > less restrictive, but it's pretty vague at the same time. I have read through your message several times, but did not find any "second license". Did you forget to paste it in? -- Henning Makholm"I ... I have to return some videos."
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:46:48PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > Well, I didn't do the mods myself, so it's not really any work lost on > my part. Do you think attempting to contact Activision would be any help > at all? I have no idea. If you do, you should probably seek advice from the list of how best to approach that. (I don't have any recommendations, myself; it's not something I'm particularly good at.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Glenn Maynard wrote: This is why I became interested in understanding licenses to begin with: so I can make reasonable evaluations of them before spending time coding. It doesn't look like either of the two licenses are redistributable, even in non-free. Neither gives permission to redistribute, though it seems that they may have intended to in the second license. Well, I didn't do the mods myself, so it's not really any work lost on my part. Do you think attempting to contact Activision would be any help at all?
Re: Problematic Software Licenses
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:05:53PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > with Debian because of the first license, but I'm wondering if anybody > has any advice on if this is the sort of issue that we could "dance > around", though I'm guessing it's not. Barring that, is there any way of I'm very sure your guess is correct. Sorry. :) > The original downloads came from http://www2.ravensoft.com/source/, but > the package I'm interested in is a heavily modified version of it. This is why I became interested in understanding licenses to begin with: so I can make reasonable evaluations of them before spending time coding. It doesn't look like either of the two licenses are redistributable, even in non-free. Neither gives permission to redistribute, though it seems that they may have intended to in the second license. -- Glenn Maynard
