Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [090424 04:31]: This basically means that public domain dedications are ok if the author is in the US, questionable in most other jurisdictions where we would need clarification from someone familiar with the legal systems, and known to be insufficient in Germany. Is there any citation for that? I've not yet seen any evidence or hint of an evidence why a German cannot give an maximal permissive license by talking about putting it into public domain. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com wrote: Whilst they might technically still hold copyright, I wonder if a court would consider a statement like 'Dedicated to the public domain' to be an all-permissive licence grant, given the common English meaning of the phrase. Probably hasn't been tested in court. This is just a drive-by comment from me that the public domain can mean either the (US?) idea of being shared and shareable without restriction or the (UK?) idea of being known by members of the public and not any sort of secret. I'm not sure of testing in court, but if it's pretty obviously unrestricted, it's probably good enough - although not ideal as that sort of public domain is shrunk by bad laws recently. 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:05 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: This is just a drive-by comment from me that the public domain can mean either the (US?) idea of being shared and shareable without restriction or the (UK?) idea of being known by members of the public and not any sort of secret. That's true, but in the context of the area of the file where you would otherwise find a copyright notice, I would think that most reasonable people would interpret it as the 'US' idea. I'm not sure of testing in court, but if it's pretty obviously unrestricted, it's probably good enough - although not ideal as that sort of public domain is shrunk by bad laws recently. I don't think that a plaintiff suing for infringement over this work would have much luck in court, but if someone can find case law that suggests otherwise... In any case, the likelihood of the author or any subsequent copyright holder taking any sort of action over this is very, very small. Also, for this particular case, see the author's post in sci.crypt.research back in Jan 1995[0]: LEGAL STUFF The intention of this document is to share some research results on an informal basis. You may freely use the algorithm and code listed above as far as I'm concerned, as long as you don't sue me for anything, but there may be other restrictions that I am not aware of to your using it. The C++ code fragment above is just intended to illustrate the algorithm being discussed, and is not a complete application. I understand this document to be Constitutionally protected publication, and not a munition, but don't blame me if it explodes or has toxic side effects. So for this particular code it's fine, copyright or not, although the effect of the warranty disclaimer could be debated ;) [0] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt.research/browse_thread/thread/85d7519a3486193c/5817f0a5906c1bf7 -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@gmail.com wrote: In the source code of the package my team is managing there is this one file. I'm wondering whether it is DFSG-free and weather GPL v2 only code can link it with/(out) exception. Here is the full copyright statement /* sapphire.cpp -- the Saphire II stream cipher class. Dedicated to the Public Domain the author and inventor: (Michael Paul Johnson). This code comes with no warranty. Use it at your own risk. Ported from the Pascal implementation of the Sapphire Stream Cipher 9 December 1994. Added hash pre- and post-processing 27 December 1994. Modified initialization to make index variables key dependent, made the output function more resistant to cryptanalysis, and renamed to Sapphire II 2 January 1995 */ Well, it's public domain, so there's no restrictions on it and it should be fine. (Although there is some debate going on about whether it's in fact possible to disclaim copyright in some jurisdictions, but I highly doubt the author will try to enforce anything.) -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com writes: Well, it's public domain, so there's no restrictions on it and it should be fine. (Although there is some debate going on about whether it's in fact possible to disclaim copyright in some jurisdictions, but I highly doubt the author will try to enforce anything.) This is no guarantee against the author later realising they still hold copyright, changing their mind on their generosity, and enforcing their copyright on those who have violated that copyright. More significantly, it is no guarantee against *some other party* later realising they have (by whatever means) obtained the original author's copyrights, and deciding to enforce them. In other words, this assumption fails the “Tentacles of Evil” test. Far better would be to convince the upstream that despite their attempts, they still do hold copyright, and for them to explicitly grant license under extremely-permissive terms like those of Expat URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt. -- \“Please to bathe inside the tub.” —hotel room, Japan | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: This is no guarantee against the author later realising they still hold copyright, changing their mind on their generosity, and enforcing their copyright on those who have violated that copyright. More significantly, it is no guarantee against *some other party* later realising they have (by whatever means) obtained the original author's copyrights, and deciding to enforce them. In other words, this assumption fails the “Tentacles of Evil” test. Far better would be to convince the upstream that despite their attempts, they still do hold copyright, and for them to explicitly grant license under extremely-permissive terms like those of Expat URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt. Whilst they might technically still hold copyright, I wonder if a court would consider a statement like 'Dedicated to the public domain' to be an all-permissive licence grant, given the common English meaning of the phrase. Probably hasn't been tested in court. -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com writes: Whilst they might technically still hold copyright, I wonder if a court would consider a statement like 'Dedicated to the public domain' to be an all-permissive licence grant, given the common English meaning of the phrase. Probably hasn't been tested in court. I'm convinced by the sum of arguments given by Rick Moen on this topic URL:http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html. Summary: The commendably generous act of purporting to place a copyright-covered work into the public domain before the expiration of its copyright term has a number of problems. (Note that, for a property to truly become public domain, its ownership title must cease to exist. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the owner of record to declare I wish to no longer be regarded as the owner of this property.) He also points to the opinion of many that requiring a work to have a copyright holder, and the inability to actively cause a work to have *no* copyright holder, is considered a feature: it means that liability for the work's effects can always, in theory, be attributed to some responsible party. So I'm not at all confident in the outcome of a putative judgement on such attempts to put a work in the public domain; it seems to me that there are strong reasons on both sides, and no obvious result. Better to retain copyright and irrevocably grant to all recipients all the rights you don't want to restrict. -- \ “Well, my brother says Hello. So, hooray for speech therapy.” | `\ —Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:52:44AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com writes: Well, it's public domain, so there's no restrictions on it and it should be fine. (Although there is some debate going on about whether it's in fact possible to disclaim copyright in some jurisdictions, but I highly doubt the author will try to enforce anything.) This is no guarantee against the author later realising they still hold copyright, changing their mind on their generosity, and enforcing their copyright on those who have violated that copyright. More significantly, it is no guarantee against *some other party* later realising they have (by whatever means) obtained the original author's copyrights, and deciding to enforce them. In other words, this assumption fails the “Tentacles of Evil” test. Wow. Please stop pretending that you have any clue at all what you're talking about. Andrew, public domain dedications have always been fine for Debian and taken at face value, provided that: - the author's intent is unambiguous (i.e., there isn't a statement this work is in the Public Domain followed immediately by a license that attempts to restrict use of the work), and - the author lives in a jurisdiction where the principles of the public domain, and public domain dedications, are recognized, even if it's not clear under present law how a public domain dedication can be made. This basically means that public domain dedications are ok if the author is in the US, questionable in most other jurisdictions where we would need clarification from someone familiar with the legal systems, and known to be insufficient in Germany. Even in cases where public domain is considered ok for Debian, it's preferable (and IMHO, better meets the goals of anyone wishing to place their work in the PD) that the author also include an explicit, liberal license with an explanation that this is done in case the PD dedication is not recognized as valid. The Creative Commons CC0 license is an effective way to do this: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@gmail.com writes: /* sapphire.cpp -- the Saphire II stream cipher class. Dedicated to the Public Domain the author and inventor: (Michael Paul Johnson). This code comes with no warranty. Use it at your own risk. Without any regard to the legal issues, it is usually a bad idea to use ciphers that have not been thoroughly analyzed by experienced cryptographers. I've never heard of Sapphire II or Michael Paul Johnson and, although that doesn't mean it is not secure, it is a bit worrying. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Wow. Please stop pretending that you have any clue at all what you're talking about. That might be appropriate if I was speaking as any kind of authority. I'm not; I'm presenting arguments and reasons. Please stick to those instead of the personal attacks. (Also, please follow the mailing list CoC; I haven't asked for individual copies of list responses, please don't send them.) Andrew, public domain dedications have always been fine for Debian and taken at face value, provided that […] Sure, I agree that's what *has been* done. I'm responding to discussion about whether it's *correct* to do so, given the arguments against. I'd be interested to know what arguments there are against those I've presented (both mine, and those referred to on Rick Moen's site). -- \“Odious ideas are not entitled to hide from criticism behind | `\ the human shield of their believers' feelings.” —Richard | _o__) Stallman | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
