Re: lirc license
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:29:26AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > > In the case of gcc, it wasn't anything fuzzy. IIRC, libgcc is linked > > statically into the executable to provide startup code etc. and it used > > to be GPL. libgcc (and similar parts of gcc) have license additions to > > prevent every executable from being neccessarily GPL licensed. > > > > In short it's not the output of gcc, but the automatically linked libgcc > > that created license problems. > > gcc itself carries a similar exemption, to be sure. I looked around in the gcc source and that doesn't seem to be the case. Besides if it were, the gcc debs would have erronous /u/s/d/copyright files that don't mention that (only the linked libs exception is mentioned). -- Andreas Bombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>GPG key 0x04880A44 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lirc license
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:25:34AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:41:37AM +, Benjamin A'Lee wrote: > > > I was under the impression that the output of a program wasn't covered by > > > the > > > licence of the program (or any licence dictated by the author of the > > > program). > > > Wouldn't that be similar to the output of GCC being automatically covered > > > by the > > > GPL, or am I misunderstanding something (I wouldn't be surprised if I > > > was). > > > > The output of a program may be covered by the license of the > > program. It's one of those fuzzy cases that is difficult to > > predict. To avoid problems, the license of gcc explicitly disclaims > > this, granting you an unlimited license to do anything with its > > output. > > In the case of gcc, it wasn't anything fuzzy. IIRC, libgcc is linked > statically into the executable to provide startup code etc. and it used > to be GPL. libgcc (and similar parts of gcc) have license additions to > prevent every executable from being neccessarily GPL licensed. > > In short it's not the output of gcc, but the automatically linked libgcc > that created license problems. gcc itself carries a similar exemption, to be sure. The fact that other odd things happen in the gcc codebase isn't particularly relevant. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lirc license
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:25:34AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:41:37AM +, Benjamin A'Lee wrote: > > I was under the impression that the output of a program wasn't covered by > > the > > licence of the program (or any licence dictated by the author of the > > program). > > Wouldn't that be similar to the output of GCC being automatically covered > > by the > > GPL, or am I misunderstanding something (I wouldn't be surprised if I was). > > The output of a program may be covered by the license of the > program. It's one of those fuzzy cases that is difficult to > predict. To avoid problems, the license of gcc explicitly disclaims > this, granting you an unlimited license to do anything with its > output. In the case of gcc, it wasn't anything fuzzy. IIRC, libgcc is linked statically into the executable to provide startup code etc. and it used to be GPL. libgcc (and similar parts of gcc) have license additions to prevent every executable from being neccessarily GPL licensed. In short it's not the output of gcc, but the automatically linked libgcc that created license problems. -- Andreas Bombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>GPG key 0x04880A44 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lirc license
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:41:37AM +, Benjamin A'Lee wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 01:38:25PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > [...] > > However, when starting irrecord, it says: > > IMPORTANT: The license of the config files created by this program requires > > that you send them to the author. If you don't like this license exit this > > program now by pressing Ctrl-C! Otherwise press RETURN. > > End quote. > > > [...] > > I was under the impression that the output of a program wasn't covered by the > licence of the program (or any licence dictated by the author of the program). > Wouldn't that be similar to the output of GCC being automatically covered by > the > GPL, or am I misunderstanding something (I wouldn't be surprised if I was). The output of a program may be covered by the license of the program. It's one of those fuzzy cases that is difficult to predict. To avoid problems, the license of gcc explicitly disclaims this, granting you an unlimited license to do anything with its output. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lirc license
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 01:38:25PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: [...] > However, when starting irrecord, it says: > IMPORTANT: The license of the config files created by this program requires > that you send them to the author. If you don't like this license exit this > program now by pressing Ctrl-C! Otherwise press RETURN. > End quote. > [...] I was under the impression that the output of a program wasn't covered by the licence of the program (or any licence dictated by the author of the program). Wouldn't that be similar to the output of GCC being automatically covered by the GPL, or am I misunderstanding something (I wouldn't be surprised if I was). Also, although it says "The licence says this", surely that's irrelevant without an actual licence that actually says that? -Ben -- Termisoc Secretary: http://www.termisoc.org/ Home Page: http://benalee.co.uk/ "penis jokes are okay in mixed company. VMS is NOT!!!" -Overfiend on #Debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lirc license
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 01:38:25PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > However, when starting irrecord, it says: > IMPORTANT: The license of the config files created by this program requires > that you send them to the author. If you don't like this license exit this > program now by pressing Ctrl-C! Otherwise press RETURN. > End quote. This is not a license. This is fairly meaningless gibbering. I cannot imagine any way in which it could possibly be accurate; copyright law cannot do that. So we can ignore it as the ravings of a lunatic. Where's the real license? Is it just the GPL? [Your investigations into whether the material is copyrightable are probably unnecessary at this point] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lirc license
Bas Wijnen wrote: However, when starting irrecord, it says: IMPORTANT: The license of the config files created by this program requires that you send them to the author. If you don't like this license exit this program now by pressing Ctrl-C! Otherwise press RETURN. End quote. I do not expect this license to be compatible with the GPL. It doesn't sound very free to me either. Then again, the only problem I see with the DFSG is DFSG #1, where sending this back to the author could be considered a "fee". This would almost certainly be non-free. I don't presume to speak for Debian, but I see nothing wrong with your analysis. It would appear, however, that the LIRC team has already been made aware of this problem: the CVS version of irrecord[1] has a DFSG-free request, instead of a non-free requirement (the patch to the requirement can be found here[2]). The request, as phrased in the newest LIRC is as follows: "Please send the finished config files to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> so that I can make them available to others. Don't forget to put all information that you can get about the remote control in the header of the file. Press RETURN to continue." As this is not a legal requirement, but a non-binding request, it is not non-free. It would be pretty straightforward (albeit time-consuming) to use (GP licensed) CVS diffs to back-patch the current irrecord to a version identical to the one in Debian, apart from the license text. This suggests to me that it is probably ok to simply change the message in the Debian version to that of the new version. [1] - http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lirc/lirc/daemons/irrecord.c?rev=HEAD&view=auto [2] - http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lirc/lirc/daemons/irrecord.c?r1=5.37&r2=5.38 -- Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lirc license
Hello, Quoted from /usr/share/doc/lirc/copyright: Summary of copyright messages found in sources: Copyright (C) 1998 Pablo d'Angelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copyright (C) 1998,1999 Christoph Bartelmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copyright (C) 1996,97 Ralph Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Copyright (C) 1998 Trent Piepho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copyright (C) 1998 Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copyright (C) 1998.11.18 Sinkovics Zoltan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The whole thing is licensed under the GPL. End quote. However, when starting irrecord, it says: IMPORTANT: The license of the config files created by this program requires that you send them to the author. If you don't like this license exit this program now by pressing Ctrl-C! Otherwise press RETURN. End quote. I do not expect this license to be compatible with the GPL. It doesn't sound very free to me either. Then again, the only problem I see with the DFSG is DFSG #1, where sending this back to the author could be considered a "fee". As I understand it, this license is on the parts of the generated file which are included directly by irrecord. Because as far as I know, the actual recorded codes are just data which the program manipulates, so the copyright for them cannot be claimed by the copyrightholders of irrecord. Now, if I look at a generated file, the directly included parts are only the comments at the start, and some keywords to implement the correct protocol (so it is readable by lircd). It doesn't look like a copyrightable contribution to me, but I am not a lawyer. If it is copyrightable, then that must be the comment at the start, as the keywords could be derived from the (GPL'd) lircd source. Removing the comments at the start from the file would then also remove their copyrighted part. Anyway, as the file is generated from a GPL'd file, I don't see how these parts can have a different license than the GPL. I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Please CC me as I am not subscribed to the list. Thanks, Bas Wijnen -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
