Re: W3 software license
Evan Prodromou wrote: > The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says > "obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the > license. That isn't a problem in and of itself; it often indicates the presence of non-free usage restriction terms, but no such terms appear to be present in this license. > W3C® SOFTWARE NOTICE AND LICENSE > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 > > This work (and included software, documentation such as READMEs, or > other related items) is being provided by the copyright holders under > the following license. By obtaining, using and/or copying this work, you > (the licensee) agree that you have read, understood, and will comply > with the following terms and conditions. > > Permission to copy, modify, and distribute this software and its > documentation, with or without modification, for any purpose and without > fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the > following on ALL copies of the software and documentation or portions > thereof, including modifications: > >1. The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of > the redistributed or derivative work. This is fine; debian/copyright satisfies this requirement. >2. Any pre-existing intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or > terms and conditions. If none exist, the W3C Software Short Notice > should be included (hypertext is preferred, text is permitted) within > the body of any redistributed or derivative code. This just requires you to preserve copyright and similar notices. >3. Notice of any changes or modifications to the files, including the > date changes were made. (We recommend you provide URIs to the location > from which the code is derived.) This is fine; debian/changelog satisfies this requirement. > THIS SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS," AND COPYRIGHT > HOLDERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, > INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS > FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR > DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, > TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS. > > COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL > OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR > DOCUMENTATION. Standard warranty disclaimer. No problem here. > The name and trademarks of copyright holders may NOT be used in > advertising or publicity pertaining to the software without specific, > written prior permission. Title to copyright in this software and any > associated documentation will at all times remain with copyright holders. No-op; perfectly fine. > The mentioned 'W3C Software Short Notice' is: > > ---8<--- > > $name_of_software: $distribution_URI > > Copyright © [$date-of-software] World Wide Web Consortium, > (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, European Research Consortium for > Informatics and Mathematics, Keio University). All Rights Reserved. This > work is distributed under the W3C® Software License [1] in the hope that > it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied > warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 > > ---8<--- This is fine as well. Overall, this license looks DFSG-free, and as far as I can tell, it is compatible with the GPL as well. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: PGP signature signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: W3 software license
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:57:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Evan Prodromou wrote: > > The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says > > "obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the > > license. > > That isn't a problem in and of itself; it often indicates the presence > of non-free usage restriction terms, but no such terms appear to be > present in this license. I disagree. I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a list of licenses we accept as DFSG-free without at least asking the upstream authors to remove this wording. The exclusive rights granted to authors and their transferees under copyright law attach regardless of the "acceptance" of those terms by third parties. Witness the fact that one can be sued for copyright infringement even if one has never dealt with, or even heard of, the person or corporation who holds a given copyright. A license is a license, not a contract. IMO it would be best to at least contact the upstream authors and make this request. -- G. Branden Robinson| Our ignorance is God; what we Debian GNU/Linux | know is science. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Green Ingersoll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: W3 software license
Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:57:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>Evan Prodromou wrote: >> >>>The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says >>>"obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the >>>license. >> >>That isn't a problem in and of itself; it often indicates the presence >>of non-free usage restriction terms, but no such terms appear to be >>present in this license. > > I disagree. I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a > list of licenses we accept as DFSG-free without at least asking the > upstream authors to remove this wording. > > The exclusive rights granted to authors and their transferees under > copyright law attach regardless of the "acceptance" of those terms by third > parties. Witness the fact that one can be sued for copyright infringement > even if one has never dealt with, or even heard of, the person or > corporation who holds a given copyright. > > A license is a license, not a contract. > > IMO it would be best to at least contact the upstream authors and make this > request. I agree that such language should be strongly discouraged, and that the authors should be contacted and requested to remove the language, but I do not believe it should render the license non-DFSG-free unless there are in fact use restrictions in the license. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: W3 software license
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>>The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says > >>>"obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the > >>>license. > > I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a > > list of licenses we accept as DFSG-free without at least asking the > > upstream authors to remove this wording. Why don't we do this: I'll write up a summary of the license, and note that we think that works released under the license would, barring complications, be free. I'll also add a suggestion to drop the use language. How does that sound? ~ESP
Re: W3 software license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says >"obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the >license. >>>I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a >>>list of licenses we accept as DFSG-free without at least asking the >>>upstream authors to remove this wording. > > Why don't we do this: I'll write up a summary of the license, and note that we > think that works released under the license would, barring complications, be > free. > > I'll also add a suggestion to drop the use language. > > How does that sound? Sounds great. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: W3 software license
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:33:26AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> Branden Robinson: > >>> Josh Triplett: > >>>The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says > >>>"obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the > >>>license. [...] > >>I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a > >>list of licenses we accept as DFSG-free without at least asking the > >>upstream authors to remove this wording. > > > > Why don't we do this: I'll write up a summary of the license, and note that > > we > > think that works released under the license would, barring complications, be > > free. > > > > I'll also add a suggestion to drop the use language. > > > > How does that sound? > > Sounds great. Any progress on this? -- G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often Debian GNU/Linux | pretenders. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Plato http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
