Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
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
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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]
* 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]
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
