Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-07 Thread Per Olofsson
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 15:50 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
 You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...

No, it's not. KTH's Kerberos 5 is called Heimdal and is in the source
package with that name. The Kerberos 4 in Debian is from KTH, however.

-- 
Pelle



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-07 Thread Walter Landry
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 2004-06-07 01:43:08 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning [1] found 
  potentially
  questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the 
  list.
 
 Searching the list archive by that message-id brings no results, you 
 know?
 
 You seem to have made a decision that this licence is ambiguous 
 *before* asking the list. I think you have been wasting the list's 
 time.

He is not the only person who thinks the license is ambiguous.  Nor is
he the only person who thinks that you're being a bit touchy.  Take a
chill pill.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-07 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-07 12:53:37 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


He is not the only person who thinks the license is ambiguous.


Sure, but the stated reasons about assuming copyright seem to be 
either misreading the licence or misunderstanding copyright.



Nor is
he the only person who thinks that you're being a bit touchy.  Take a
chill pill.


Some seem to have the idea I'm touchy/snapping/angry. Those people 
don't know me and must be adding some non-existant intonantion to my 
emails. Rest assured, I am quite tranquil and it usually takes more 
than emails to annoy me.


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-07 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:45:59 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
  On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
  
   the reason you can copy a file
   which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
   because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.
  
  I don't think so: you are not granted any right by a license, unless
  you accept the license itself.
  Hence, I don't see how could the GPL grant any right to make copies
  to someone who is not willing to accept the GPL itself.
 
 Please read the GPL, specifically sections 5 and 6.  You only have to
 accept the license if you wish to modify or distribute the work.

Ooops. I apologize for not having recalled this.

 
 I'm not going to participate in any more semantic arguments or legal
 101 on what the definitions of the words 'distribute' or 'copy' are.

Could you please provide a good reference to some clear definition?
I hope I know the difference, but I'd better check anyway... :p

 If you are confused about copyrights in general, please go to 
 http://www.loc.gov/copyright and read the text entitled copyright
 basics.

Well, *now* I'm a bit confused. At
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
I read the following:

é[ Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of
[ copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the
[ following:
[
[* To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
...

AFAIK the reasoning behind GPL#5 is that only the license gives me some
rights, hence I must have implicitly accepted it, if I exercise those
rights.
U.S. Copyright law (and many other copyright laws, I suppose) lists the
right to make copies as one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights.

That would bring me to the conclusion that I must accept the GPL in
order to make a copy of a GPL'd work.

See for example GPL#4:

[   4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
[ except as expressly provided under this License.


On the other hand GPL#5 itself says I'm required to accept the GPL only
in order to distribute or modify...

Could you explain how's that possible?


-- 
 |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
 Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
 | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0


pgpIU94hxpjZ4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-07 Thread Adam McKenna
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:32:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
 That would bring me to the conclusion that I must accept the GPL in
 order to make a copy of a GPL'd work.
 
 See for example GPL#4:
 
 [   4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
 [ except as expressly provided under this License.
 
 
 On the other hand GPL#5 itself says I'm required to accept the GPL only
 in order to distribute or modify...
 
 Could you explain how's that possible?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

Interpret as you will.  I interpret this to mean that I can make copies of
and/or modifications to a program for personal use, and that that act is not
defined as 'copying' for purposes of copyright.  Copyright only becomes
involved when I decide to distribute copies or modifications to a third
party, at which time I will have to accept the GPL and abide by its terms.

--Adam

-- 
Adam McKenna  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-06 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:46:51 +0200 Bernhard R. Link wrote:

 * Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040602 16:42]:
  If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by
  the GPL's terms.[...]

 If you log on some computer and make a copy there and transmit it to
 you (like ssh'ing into a solaris box and copying /bin/true), this may
 be true.
 
 But normally someone set up a computer do make a copy and sent it to
 me, if I request it. As when someone makes copies of a CD and sends
 them to me, when I send him a postcard.

I agree.


Henning, consider how, say, the HTTP protocol works: an HTTP server
serves some content upon my *request*. I send a

  GET /path/lbreakout2_2.2.2-1woody1_i386.deb

to the web server, it processes my request (this choice of word is not a
coincidence!), determines if I have permission to get that resource and
serves a response to me.
The response may contain a

  403 forbidden

error code, or a copy of

  $DOCUMENTROOT/path/lbreakout2_2.2.2-1woody1_i386.deb


Is that any different (from a legal point of view) from visiting one
friend of mine, seeing that she has a great game installed on her Debian
Woody machine, *asking* her May I have a copy of the deb package? and
going back home with a floppy disk containing
lbreakout2_2.2.2-1woody1_i386.deb?

My friend is the one who is making the copy.
In the HTTP example, the copy is being made by server, that is (from a
legal standpoint) by the person who put online the file.


In the HTTP example, you can also consider the case in which the
response contains dynamically-generated content: that content may be a
derived work of something (a template, perhaps...).
Do you claim that *I* am the person who generated that content?
I don't even necessarily have access to the template!

I think that derivation is made by the server: after all, they are
called *server-side* scripting languages...


-- 
 |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
 Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
 | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0


pgprcWqdBekmw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-06 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:

 the reason you can copy a file
 which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
 because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.

I don't think so: you are not granted any right by a license, unless you
accept the license itself.
Hence, I don't see how could the GPL grant any right to make copies to
someone who is not willing to accept the GPL itself.


-- 
 |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
 Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
 | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0


pgp3AM4y2lpZZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-05 00:23:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem.  Sorry, but I'm
not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular 
piece of


No-one is ignoring the DFSG, so I don't know why you mentioned that.

software, and I think it's the burden of people who actually care 
about

the software to do the legwork to ensure that it's free.


Sure, but I can't see why they shouldn't assert their (non-exclusive) 
copyright interest in derived works.


There's also not yet a consensus on the agree to the following terms 
or

do not retrieve clause [...]


No, that's interesting too.

--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-06 Thread Adam McKenna
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
 On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
 
  the reason you can copy a file
  which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
  because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.
 
 I don't think so: you are not granted any right by a license, unless you
 accept the license itself.
 Hence, I don't see how could the GPL grant any right to make copies to
 someone who is not willing to accept the GPL itself.

Please read the GPL, specifically sections 5 and 6.  You only have to accept 
the license if you wish to modify or distribute the work.

I'm not going to participate in any more semantic arguments or legal 101 on
what the definitions of the words 'distribute' or 'copy' are.  If you are 
confused about copyrights in general, please go to 
http://www.loc.gov/copyright and read the text entitled copyright basics.

--Adam

-- 
Adam McKenna  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:52:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
 On 2004-06-05 00:23:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem.  Sorry, but I'm
 not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular 
 piece of
 
 No-one is ignoring the DFSG, so I don't know why you mentioned that.

You snapped at me for not being willing to do the footwork, despite
being willing to bring up a possible issue--which seemed to be saying
if you're not going to do the work, then you should have ignored the
problem.  (All I was really doing was bumping a possible problem
found in one of the other threads--where it was noticed but mostly
ignored, since it wasn't the topic of the thread--to a place where it
could be considered on its own.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:52:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
 software, and I think it's the burden of people who actually care 
 about
 the software to do the legwork to ensure that it's free.
 
 Sure, but I can't see why they shouldn't assert their (non-exclusive) 
 copyright interest in derived works.

No reason.  But that isn't necessarily what the clause in question says.  It
is ambiguous; it could be interpreted in one of several ways.  One of which
is OK, and another which is very not-OK.

We've had cases previously where a licensor has interpreted a licence in
common use as a DFSG-free licence in a non-free manner; can you give any
solid reason why that could not be an issue in this case?  We have a licence
which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and some of
us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it.  Why do you
have such a problem with that?

And for the record, although I have no interest in or knowledge of this
package, I would be willing to contact upstream about this matter if the
maintainer and other better-qualified parties are unable or unwilling to do
so.

- Matt



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
 We've had cases previously where a licensor has interpreted a licence in
 common use as a DFSG-free licence in a non-free manner; can you give any
 solid reason why that could not be an issue in this case?

That can *always* be the case: just about any free license can be interpreted
in unusual ways that make them non-free; even the simple MIT license.  This
is never an issue in and of itself, unless we have real reason to believe
that a license really is being interpreted in such a way (eg. UWash).

 We have a licence
 which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and some of
 us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it.

That's what the issue really is.  We might not know whether this is simply
a redundant we retain copyright on things we have copyright on anyway,
or a strange attempt at copyright assignment.

(I say might because I don't really have a strong opinion on this.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 07:12:54PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
  We have a licence
  which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and some of
  us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it.
 
 That's what the issue really is.  We might not know whether this is simply
 a redundant we retain copyright on things we have copyright on anyway,
 or a strange attempt at copyright assignment.
 
 (I say might because I don't really have a strong opinion on this.)

I'd upgrade might to do.  There have been (by my count) at least three
people in this thread who have said why are they trying to steal other
copyrights?.  Although an interpretation of the clause with respect to US
copyright law says that the clause should only mean we keep our copyrights
(which is a NOP), has there never been a case where a licensor has attempted
to put things into a licence which, by a strict reading of the law, they
cannot do?  *cough*EULA*cough*.

I'd rather a clarification be sought from the licensor, rather than us
finding out which way the licensor interprets their clause when someone gets
served with legal papers.

- Matt



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-06 23:37:16 +0100 Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

No reason.  But that isn't necessarily what the clause in question 
says.  It
is ambiguous; it could be interpreted in one of several ways.  One of 
which

is OK, and another which is very not-OK.


I do not agree that OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative 
works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third 
party is ambiguous. Perceptions of ambiguity posted so far seem to be 
based on misunderstandings of basic copyright principles, such as 
thinking that only one entity may have copyright interest in a work, 
or simple paranoia.


If people are objecting to another phrase, I apologise. However, 
nothing in the above phrase seems to be an assignment. I suspect 
retain was used cautiously to avoid any question about that, as you 
cannot retain something which was not yours before. The copyright of 
new work in the derived work would be held by its author and need 
specific assignment before it could be retained by them.


Even so, if there is third-party material in the donated Source Code 
for which OpenVision doesn't hold the copyrights, then there is a 
problem with using this licence. I don't think anyone has claimed that 
is the case yet that I have read.


We've had cases previously where a licensor has interpreted a licence 
in
common use as a DFSG-free licence in a non-free manner; can you give 
any
solid reason why that could not be an issue in this case? 


No, any licensor may be insane. I doubt we check all of them, unless 
they cause trouble. Until then, we take what they write at face value. 
Can you give any solid reason why this should be different? This level 
of paranoia would probably paralyse debian and I can't see many people 
wanting it.



We have a licence
which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and 
some of
us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it.  Why do 
you

have such a problem with that?


I think this is not getting clarification on an ambiguous clause, but 
asking the copyright holder for a free basic copyright lesson. Do not 
be surprised if they react badly.


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-06 19:19:07 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


You snapped at me for not being willing to do the footwork, despite
being willing to bring up a possible issue--which seemed to be saying 
[crap]


As far as I know, I have not spoken to you to snap. If you infer 
that from my written words, I suggest reading them again calmly and 
slowly. It was not my intention for them to be a snap.


Also, it is easy to invent words to disagree with, but not really 
helpful. I think my question was simply a question about your role in 
this discussion. You say it is up to the list to decide if there is a 
problem, yet you seem to insist that there is a problem worth asking 
about. Why?


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 01:32:44AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
 You snapped at me for not being willing to do the footwork, despite
 being willing to bring up a possible issue--which seemed to be saying 
 [crap]
 
 As far as I know, I have not spoken to you to snap. If you infer 
 that from my written words, I suggest reading them again calmly and 
 slowly. It was not my intention for them to be a snap.

This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing
to do this work?

Call it what you like.

 Also, it is easy to invent words to disagree with, but not really 
 helpful. I think my question was simply a question about your role in 
 this discussion. You say it is up to the list to decide if there is a 
 problem, yet you seem to insist that there is a problem worth asking 
 about. Why?

I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning [1] found potentially
questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the list.

I'm not going to waste any more time reading this subthread; you're bordering
on trolling by snipping my text with [crap].  If you don't want to spend
your time evaluating this license, please don't do so.

[1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Glenn Maynard



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-07 01:43:08 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning [1] found 
potentially
questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the 
list.


Searching the list archive by that message-id brings no results, you 
know?


You seem to have made a decision that this licence is ambiguous 
*before* asking the list. I think you have been wasting the list's 
time. I am not surprised that you now try to declare discussion over 
with:


I'm not going to waste any more time reading this subthread; you're 
bordering

on trolling by snipping my text with [crap].


[crap] is a fair description of the invention that you attempted to 
attribute to me. I think you were far closer to trolldom with that 
stunt and your I-will-not-ignore-DFSG-like-you-all-want trick.



If you don't want to spend
your time evaluating this license, please don't do so.


As you know, I have done so. In my opinion, the actual permission is 
not troublesome, nor are the notices of copyright, although the 
warning about download acceptance might be. It is necessary to 
remember that more than one author may have copyright in a work.


You must mean something else by snapping than what I know as it, for 
that was not it. No matter.


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-06 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-07 00:44:25 +0100 Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


[...] Although an interpretation of the clause with respect to US
copyright law says that the clause should only mean we keep our 
copyrights

(which is a NOP),


An interpretation of the clause with respect to most forms of English 
language says that it does not attempt to deny others their 
copyrights. You have been told this by myself and BTS, at least.



has there never been a case where a licensor has attempted
to put things into a licence which, by a strict reading of the law, 
they

cannot do?  *cough*EULA*cough*.


Of course there have been, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing 
in that clause. In fact, assertion of copyright interest is fairly 
common in debian, although not to that extent. Their lawyers must be 
really paranoid...



I'd rather a clarification be sought from the licensor, rather than us
finding out which way the licensor interprets their clause when 
someone gets

served with legal papers.


It is rare for the first one hears about copyright matters to be legal 
papers. Cease letters usually come first.


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-05 Thread Adam McKenna
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
 I'll have to retract my assertation that one has to accept the GPL
 before downloading a work covered by it. In most jurisdictions that I
 know of, people by default have the right to create copies of most
 copyrighted works for their own personal use, even without permission
 from the copyright holder. This is what gets the downloader and the
 button-pusher off the hook, rather than a fiction that they are not
 really creating copies.

Your semantic arguments are missing the point; the reason you can copy a file
which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is because
you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.

--Adam



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-04 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040602 16:42]:
 If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
 GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some
 computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
 computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anything by themselves, *you*
 are the one who are creating the copy on your hard drive. And creating
 a copy is smack in the middle of the copyright holder's legal
 monopoly.

If you log on some computer and make a copy there and transmit it to
you (like ssh'ing into a solaris box and copying /bin/true), this may be 
true.

But normally someone set up a computer do make a copy and sent it to me,
if I request it. As when someone makes copies of a CD and sends them to
me, when I send him a postcard.

Now when I send a postcard somewhere, there those are scanned and when
they are a printout of the request-formular, the CD is burned, copied
the address field on an envelope and sends it out. Would I still be the
one copying in your understanding of the situation? what if the form
says: might be processed without human intervention?

Hochachtungsvoll,
  Bernhard R. Link

-- 
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 If I make photocopies of a book and put them on a shelf with a Free!
 sign, and you then take a copy, I'm the one who made the copy available,
 and the one needing permission from the copyright holder.

The thing that needs permission is not making the copy *available*;
it's making the copy at all in the first place.

 It don't see how it's any different if I set up a printer with a
 button saying Push for free book!.  I didn't actually make the
 copy; he's the one who pushed the button! isn't something I'd try
 in court.

No, not if you were accused of contributory infringement by making it
too easy for third parties to make copies of a specific work that they
are not allowed to make copies of.

The fact that *you* are in trouble, however, does not in itself stop
the person pushing the button from being in trouble *too* if he knew
that said button would cause the machine to manufacture a copy that he
did not have any right to manufacture.


I'll have to retract my assertation that one has to accept the GPL
before downloading a work covered by it. In most jurisdictions that I
know of, people by default have the right to create copies of most
copyrighted works for their own personal use, even without permission
from the copyright holder. This is what gets the downloader and the
button-pusher off the hook, rather than a fiction that they are not
really creating copies.

-- 
Henning Makholm   Hør, hvad er det egentlig
  der ikke kan blive ved med at gå?



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-04 Thread Anthony DeRobertis


On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:


Be careful.  You're quoting US law in an international context.  Not
everyone lives in the US.


You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-04 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
 On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
 
 Be careful.  You're quoting US law in an international context.  Not
 everyone lives in the US.
 
 You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...

I'm not saying the originating region matters; I'm saying that a copyright
assignment clause might be valid in some regions.  The only reason a
particular region might matter is if there's a choice of law clause,
which I suppose might render such a clause always invalid.

(I'd be cautious about that, too--any this clause is non-free but unenforcable
so let's ignore it reasoning should be taken very carefully, and with the
understanding that it may be ignoring the wishes of the author.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-04 Thread Anthony DeRobertis


On Jun 3, 2004, at 20:27, Henning Makholm wrote:


But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
where you consider the copy to be made, *I* am the one who is
causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
particular time and place.


So then the server operator is guilty of at worst contributory 
infringement? Someone please go fill in RIAA...




Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-04 Thread Anthony DeRobertis


On Jun 4, 2004, at 15:55, Glenn Maynard wrote:


On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:


Be careful.  You're quoting US law in an international context.  Not
everyone lives in the US.


You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...


I'm not saying the originating region matters;


It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to  
mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license,  
we can be pretty sure it isn't trying to be a copyright assignment,  
because it can't be.


Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright  
assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO,  
sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the  
copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no.



I'm saying that a copyright
assignment clause might be valid in some regions.


FYI, after much googling I think I might of finally found one...  
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:WI9m0navnrwJ: 
www.ipophilippines.gov.ph/laws/ipcode/CopyrightsCh7.htm+hl=enie=UTF-8


(Yeah, google cache because their server seems dead...)

I'm not sure if a license would count as a written indication of such  
intention.


(I'd be cautious about that, too--any this clause is non-free but  
unenforcable
so let's ignore it reasoning should be taken very carefully, and with  
the

understanding that it may be ignoring the wishes of the author.)


Agreed.



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-04 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
 Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright  
 assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO,  
 sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the  
 copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no.

As a general rule, international copyright assignment is a bitch.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- --  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-04 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
 I'm not saying the originating region matters;
 
 It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to  
 mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license,  
 we can be pretty sure it isn't trying to be a copyright assignment,  
 because it can't be.

Why can we be sure of that?  Lots of people try to do things with copyright
that they can't (often because they don't know that).  I don't think that's
a good way to judge what the author intended.

In this case, we're probably best off asking for a clarification from the
author.  (I don't even use Kerberos, so I'm not up to doing that.)

 Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright  
 assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO,  
 sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the  
 copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no.

I don't know what happens if you move to FOO, though.

-- 
Glenn Maynard



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-04 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-04 22:36:57 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In this case, we're probably best off asking for a clarification from 
the

author.  (I don't even use Kerberos, so I'm not up to doing that.)


This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing 
to do this work?


I still think it is fine for them to assert their copyright interest 
in derived works. Nothing they have written denies other authors' 
interests, does it?


Of course, if they have third-party-copyright material in their 
donated Source Code (possibly lawyerbomb?) then I think they have a 
problem anyway. I didn't notice claims of that sort yet.


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-04 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:59:14PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
 This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing 
 to do this work?

This has nothing to do with making me happy.  I only raised the issue;
it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem.  Sorry, but I'm
not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular piece of
software, and I think it's the burden of people who actually care about
the software to do the legwork to ensure that it's free.

(It also wouldn't be a particularly good idea for me to contact upstream,
who I have no relationship with; the package maintainer should probably
be allowed to do that.)

There's also not yet a consensus on the agree to the following terms or
do not retrieve clause, which is why I havn't yet bothered the package
maintainer about this (which may not ultimately be necessary, if consensus
ends up being that both clauses are acceptable).

-- 
Glenn Maynard



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-03 Thread Anthony DeRobertis


On May 31, 2004, at 20:42, Matthew Palmer wrote:

   OpenVision retains all copyrights in the donated Source Code. 
OpenVision
   also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, 
whether

   created by OpenVision or by a third party. The OpenVision copyright
   notice must be preserved if derivative works are made based on the
   donated Source Code.


This is just downright pilferous.  No way in hell it's Free.  The 
first and
last sentences are all right, it's just that middle one where it lays 
claim
to anything you do.  Kind of a pre-emptive copyright assignment 
thing...


It can't be a copyright assignment, because I have not signed it...

Title 17, Sec. 204(a)
A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation
of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance,
or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and
signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's
duly authorized agent.

I think they have very poorly worded way of saying that they have 
copyright interest in the derivative work.




Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-03 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Do you mean to claim copyright on other people's work based on yours, or
 just to retain your copyright on the portions of your work which they used? 
 The wording is unclear to us, sorry.

But those are the same thing.  Copyright attaches to the whole work.
Perhaps what you really want to ask is this:

Do you mean to deny the copyright interests of others in work they do
 based on yours, or just to retain your copyright on the portions of
 your work which they used?

Of course, phrased that way, it's perfectly clear which they intend,
because they aren't saying anything about denying others' copyrights
over derivative works.  They merely assert their own.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-03 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:09:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
 It can't be a copyright assignment, because I have not signed it...
 
 Title 17, Sec. 204(a)
   A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation
   of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance,
   or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and
   signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's
   duly authorized agent.

Be careful.  You're quoting US law in an international context.  Not
everyone lives in the US.

-- 
Glenn Maynard



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-03 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

  If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
  GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some
  computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive.

 Except, the copy is being made on the server.

When I download something, the copy is being made on a hard disk that
sits in a box below my desk. Current is being modulated and passed
through a coil, which causes an area of the disk surface to be made
into a copy of the work.

But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
where you consider the copy to be made, *I* am the one who is
causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
particular time and place.

When I knowingly cause machines to make a copy for me, I am doing the
exact thing that copyright regulates.

-- 
Henning Makholm  Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
  en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
  forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi.



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-03 Thread Lewis Jardine

Henning Makholm wrote:

When I download something, the copy is being made on a hard disk that
sits in a box below my desk. Current is being modulated and passed
through a coil, which causes an area of the disk surface to be made
into a copy of the work.

But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
where you consider the copy to be made, *I* am the one who is
causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
particular time and place.

When I knowingly cause machines to make a copy for me, I am doing the
exact thing that copyright regulates.

An interesting question, however, is if you are knowingly causing the 
computer(s) to copy a specific copyrighted work, considering that you 
don't know what you're downloading until you've already done it.


As the RIAA lawsuits have shown, many entities consider the act of 
downloading to be distribution of the work by the server, rather than 
the client.


Under this interpretation, downloading a GPLed work is no different than 
being given it on a CD; the owner of the server has accepted the GPL and 
is distributing the software under its terms, while the owner of the 
client computer need not accept the GPL unless he wants to. If he 
doesn't, he may still use the software, just not copy or modify it.


--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL IANADD



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-03 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:27:00AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
 But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
 where you consider the copy to be made, *I* am the one who is
 causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
 particular time and place.

If I make photocopies of a book and put them on a shelf with a Free!
sign, and you then take a copy, I'm the one who made the copy available,
and the one needing permission from the copyright holder.  It don't
see how it's any different if I set up a printer with a button saying
Push for free book!.  I didn't actually make the copy; he's the one
who pushed the button! isn't something I'd try in court.

I've only seen free licenses written in terms of the sender: here are
the terms under which you can give copies to others, and never here
are the terms under which you can receive copies from others.

Also, you often can't view even free licenses until *after* receiving the
work.  /usr/share/doc/foo/copyright is part of Debian packages; I can't
read it until I already have it (unless I bend over backwards, such
as by finding the license elsewhere, apart from the package).

-- 
Glenn Maynard



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-03 Thread Raul Miller
 Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Except, the copy is being made on the server.

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:27:00AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
 When I download something, the copy is being made on a hard disk that
 sits in a box below my desk. Current is being modulated and passed
 through a coil, which causes an area of the disk surface to be made
 into a copy of the work.

Fundamentally, the way computers work, is by making copies of everything
they're working on.  There's a copy on disk, it gets copied into the
hard disk controller, then into memory, then into L2 cache and L1 cache
through the cpu, resulting in more copies being made in the ethernet
controller, then out onto the network.  Many other copies are made
(at least one at each router) before it finally winds up on the user's
machine where a similar process results in a copy being made on disk.
This is all really fundamental and basic.

But the thing is, almost all those copies are transient -- they're
destroyed shortly after they're made.  From a non-technical point of
view, the concept of transmission is more relevant than the concept of
copying.  It's only at server where there's an original which lasts
from before the copying started till after it's concluded.  The server
makes another copy by transmitting it to the client machine.

 But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
 where you consider the copy to be made, *I* am the one who is
 causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
 particular time and place.

You're neglecting the person running the server -- if they want to stop
you from making a copy, they're free to do so.

In essence, putting something up on a publically reachable server is
an act of distribution.  If this were not the case, everybody on the
internet would be violating copyright every time they downloaded a page
which doesn't have an appropriate grant of copyright on it.

If I accepted your logic, I'd think that people listening to the radio
or watching TV are liable for copyright violation, and that the people
transmitting that content are uninvolved in making these copies.

 When I knowingly cause machines to make a copy for me, I am doing the
 exact thing that copyright regulates.

Are you suggesting that copyright law is preventing you from making a
copy of nothing?

You don't have a copy until after you've received it.

-- 
Raul



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-02 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
 (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.

If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some
computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anything by themselves, *you*
are the one who are creating the copy on your hard drive. And creating
a copy is smack in the middle of the copyright holder's legal
monopoly.

-- 
Henning Makholm  Det er jo svært at vide noget når man ikke ved det, ikke?



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-02 Thread Raul Miller
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
  (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
 If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
 GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some
 computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
 computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anything by themselves, *you*
 are the one who are creating the copy on your hard drive. And creating
 a copy is smack in the middle of the copyright holder's legal
 monopoly.

Except, the copy is being made on the server.

It's true that the copy is being stored on the client, but it seems
meaningless to make a distinction between that copy and the copy on
the wire.

-- 
Raul



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-02 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
 GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some
 computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
 computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anything by themselves, *you*
 are the one who are creating the copy on your hard drive. And creating
 a copy is smack in the middle of the copyright holder's legal
 monopoly.

It seems to me that the person who puts something on line is usually
regarded as the person doing the copying. I don't know of any legal
basis for this point of view, but it makes more practical sense if you
think of search engines, Usenet, other situations where copying
happens to all intents and purposes automatically once something has
been put onto a server, and in general that the person who puts
something on line has had a chance to examine and decide whether they
are allowed to do so, whereas the person who starts to download a file
has no way of knowing what they getting.



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-02 Thread Francesco Poli
On 02 Jun 2004 12:52:37 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

 If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
 GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some
 computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive.

Thus a downloaded package (e.g. from Debian mirror network) is legally
different from a package obtained on a CD (e.g. provided by a Debian CD
vendor).
Is that right? If this is the case, I see it as a bit surprising...

Or does the copy from CD to HD (that I must perform in order to install
the package) trigger copyright laws too?
In that case, I cannot install a package without accepting its license:
that sounds strange.
The user can use the software without accepting the license, but the
sysadmin must have accepted it, otherwise he could not install it...


-- 
 |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
 Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
 | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0


pgpVc9JBA9rma.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-02 Thread Adam McKenna
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
 Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
  (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
 
 If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
 GPL's terms.

This is absolutely false, and I believe the GPL itself contains language that
refutes this.

--Adam



Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-02 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:27:28 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:

 It seems to me that the person who puts something on line is usually
 regarded as the person doing the copying.

That is indeed what I have thought till a few days ago... And it's still
the most reasonable interpretation I can think of...

-- 
 |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
 Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
 | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0


pgp7fLBvLRORP.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-02 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Glenn Maynard wrote:

OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source
Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party.
This sounds completely unacceptable, if it means what it says.  It's also
probably invalid in the US.  Copyright assignments must be signed and on
paper; and OpenVision can't retain copyrights it never had in the first
place.

Perhaps it simply means that they retain copyright in their portions, not
that they're stealing your derivative works.  That would require a
statement from the copyright holder before I'd belive it, though.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-02 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-06-03 00:20:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:


Perhaps it simply means that they retain copyright in their portions, 
not

that they're stealing your derivative works.  That would require a
statement from the copyright holder before I'd belive it, though.


As you note, the stealing your work view requires some word-bending 
and would probably be invalid, so do we really *need* clarification?


Then again, someone may want to contact them about the aggressive tone 
in general anyway.


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-02 Thread Walter Landry
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 2004-06-03 00:20:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 
  Perhaps it simply means that they retain copyright in their portions, 
  not
  that they're stealing your derivative works.  That would require a
  statement from the copyright holder before I'd belive it, though.
 
 As you note, the stealing your work view requires some word-bending 
 and would probably be invalid, so do we really *need* clarification?
 
 Then again, someone may want to contact them about the aggressive tone 
 in general anyway.

If they really meant to steal the work, then the whole license may
be invalid.  In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
all.  So I think a clarification is definitely in order.

Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-02 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


If they really meant to steal the work, then the whole license may
be invalid.  In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
all.  So I think a clarification is definitely in order.


Why? What form should such a clarification request take? Are you a 
gibbering fool who interprets the licence in an obscure, 
counter-intuitive, absurd manner that is impossible in any 
jurisdiction we've heard about yet? seems the appropriate form to me, 
but is hardly diplomatic.


We should seek this clarification from all holders of copyrights 
affecting debian. Any of them might interpret their licence in an 
invalid way by redefining the words.


Seriously, was there ever been a successful claim of copyright 
assignment on the basis of one of these clauses?


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-02 Thread Nathanael Nerode
MJ Ray wrote:

 On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 If they really meant to steal the work, then the whole license may
 be invalid.  In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
 all.  So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
 
 Why? What form should such a clarification request take? Are you a
 gibbering fool who interprets the licence in an obscure,
 counter-intuitive, absurd manner that is impossible in any
 jurisdiction we've heard about yet?

Well, actually, I only know that copyright assignments need to be signed and
in writing in the *US*; I have no reason to think that an all your
derivative works are belong to us is invalid anywhere else.  I wouldn't be
in the least surprised if it was valid.

 seems the appropriate form to me, 
 but is hardly diplomatic.

Do you mean to claim copyright on other people's work based on yours, or
just to retain your copyright on the portions of your work which they used? 
The wording is unclear to us, sorry.

 We should seek this clarification from all holders of copyrights
 affecting debian. Any of them might interpret their licence in an
 invalid way by redefining the words.
 
 Seriously, was there ever been a successful claim of copyright
 assignment on the basis of one of these clauses?

I don't know.  If there was even one, I would be worried.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-01 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-05-31 21:15:35 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The second paragraph is very questionable, even if the terms being 
agreed

to are free.


If the only way you can obtain it is by making a copy yourself, it is 
a little hostile but applicable, I guess. Surely it's not part of the 
actual licence?


OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source 
Code,
whether created by OpenVision or by a third party seems like it 
tries to

claim copyright in parts of derived works that they didn't create.


This smells bogus, but I believe it's accurate. The original author 
and the author of the derivative probably *both* have copyrights 
covering the new work. They do not try to deny a derivative's author 
copyright. This seems a description of law, hence null.


IANAL, but I try to listen to them carefully when at conferences they 
attend.


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-01 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:27:05AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
 OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source 
 Code,
 whether created by OpenVision or by a third party seems like it 
 tries to
 claim copyright in parts of derived works that they didn't create.
 
 This smells bogus, but I believe it's accurate. The original author 
 and the author of the derivative probably *both* have copyrights 
 covering the new work. They do not try to deny a derivative's author 
 copyright. This seems a description of law, hence null.

You're saying that because it doesn't say retains _exclusive_ copyright,
it doesn't preclude others from claiming copyright over other (non
OpenVision) portions of the work?  Could be, I guess.  Which would make it
simply a poorly-worded reimplementation of copyright law.

I still don't think the you are deemed to have accepted the terms of this
licence by the act of *copying* clause is OK.  I guess, though, in a way
it's another wording of the GPL's you can't legally get a copy except by
the permissions we've granted here, so we'll take it as read you accept this
licence clause.

Could we get a clarification from the copyright holder on these issues? 
Preferably with slightly better wording, so it doesn't make it look like
they're trying to trick people into signing over their first-born?

- Matt



Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-06-01 Thread MJ Ray

On 2004-06-01 11:35:09 +0100 Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You're saying that because it doesn't say retains _exclusive_ 
copyright,

it doesn't preclude others from claiming copyright over other (non
OpenVision) portions of the work? [...]


Not exactly (else I would have written that), but close enough. As I 
understand it, more than one author can have copyright interest in the 
same work. This does not seem unusual, from a quick look at my 
bookshelf.


--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/



You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

2004-06-01 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:35:09 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:

 I guess, though, in a way
 it's another wording of the GPL's you can't legally get a copy except
 by the permissions we've granted here, so we'll take it as read you
 accept this licence clause.

Wait, wait!
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here (maybe it's my
english-language-parser's fault... :p )

Do you mean I have to accept the GPL in order to *get* a copy of a GPL'd
work?

I suppose you're referring to the following GPL-2 clause:

]   5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
] signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
] distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
] prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
] modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
] Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
] all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
] the Program or works based on it.

I have always interpreted it as covering actions such as distributing,
modifying... but not getting copies!
Am I wrong?

That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
(and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
The person who distributes the work to me must have accepted the GPL,
but I'm not required to.

License acceptance is instead necessary when *I* want to modify or
distribute the work (or a modified version of the work).

Is that right?

-- 
 |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
 Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
 | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0


pgpxSf5UbHKg7.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

2004-05-31 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 04:15:35PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
WARNING: Retrieving the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system
source code, as described below, indicates your acceptance of the
following terms.  If you do not agree to the following terms, do not
retrieve the OpenVision Kerberos administration system.

As you say, this seems shady at best, especially if (as in Debian's case)
users don't have a chance to see this before they retrieve the software.

OpenVision retains all copyrights in the donated Source Code. OpenVision
also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
created by OpenVision or by a third party. The OpenVision copyright
notice must be preserved if derivative works are made based on the
donated Source Code.

This is just downright pilferous.  No way in hell it's Free.  The first and
last sentences are all right, it's just that middle one where it lays claim
to anything you do.  Kind of a pre-emptive copyright assignment thing...

- Matt