Re: Copyright in public domain package
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:35:54AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [ Please keep me CC'ed, I'm not subscribed. ] > [...] > > I talked to upstream and they replaced those statement with something > > like the following to make their software acceptable for Debian main: > > > > # The immv file was originally part of FSL - FMRIB's Software Library > > # http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl > > # immv has now been placed in the public domain. > > # > > # Developed at FMRIB (Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance > > # Imaging of the Brain), Department of Clinical Neurology, Oxford > > # University, Oxford, UK > > > > This should be unambiguous, correct? > > Sorry, I think it's ambiguous. The UK Patent Office (www.patent.gov.uk, > who also handle much to do with copyright, sadly) sometimes uses 'in the > public domain' to mean that something has been published or offered for > sale to the public. > > How has it 'been placed in the public domain'? I am not aware of any > way to do that in Oxford besides copyright expiring, or the work somehow > not qualifying for automatic copyright protection anyway. It may be > possible to disclaim all copyright interest in a work, but I'm not sure > how to do that. I'm not sure whether I understood completely what you said. I thought the term 'public domain' states that the authors disclaim ANY copyright of there work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I also do not understand what you mean by 'do that in Oxford'. The original authors of fsliolib (the relevant part of the package wrt this copyright issue) are part of the nifticlib upstream team. The whole thing is a joint effort the create a common or standard format for medical-imaging data. So effectively fsliolib upstream disclaims the copyright of their own work. If there is a better way to state this fact, I would be happy to forward this information to upstream. > Please ask them to use a MIT/X11-like licence or similar liberal terms. > If they need specific help, I think oss-watch.ac.uk is still based in > Oxford. AFAIK upstream explicitely want this to be without any copyright. > > What is the appropriate way to note this combination of licenses in the > > package. Do I simply add this additional copyright to debian/copyright? > > Yes, simply list all relevant permission statements. Thanks. I'll added the missing statement. I hope there is a way to get this package in a shape to be acceptable for Debian main. Thanks, Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke ICQ: 48230050 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright in public domain package
Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ Please keep me CC'ed, I'm not subscribed. ] > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:35:54AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Sorry, I think it's ambiguous. The UK Patent Office (www.patent.gov.uk, > > who also handle much to do with copyright, sadly) sometimes uses 'in the > > public domain' to mean that something has been published or offered for > > sale to the public. [...] > I'm not sure whether I understood completely what you said. I thought the > term 'public domain' states that the authors disclaim ANY copyright of > there work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell, you are wrong. According to a UKPO publication: "in the public domain, i.e. on which copyright has expired" -- http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/how_protect/knowshow.htm "into the public domain, e.g. by publishing or selling goods" -- http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/question4.htm > I also do not understand what you mean by 'do that in Oxford'. I mean that I know of no way for an Oxford-based author/team to wave their hands and say that something is in the public domain. > [...] So effectively fsliolib upstream disclaims the > copyright of their own work. If there is a better way to state this > fact, I would be happy to forward this information to upstream. If they wish to disclaim the copyright, probably that should be stated explicitly. Please ask them to contact www.oss-watch.ac.uk - they have access to experts at the University of Oxford. Please use them. > > Please ask them to use a MIT/X11-like licence or similar liberal terms. > > If they need specific help, I think oss-watch.ac.uk is still based in > > Oxford. > AFAIK upstream explicitely want this to be without any copyright. Then they need to reform our copyright law - which sucks - or first publish an edition in some other jurisdiction which allows immediate PD (are there any?) or find some way of making an explicit statement, rather than relying on implications of saying it's PD. As noted elsewhere, I think it's OK for debian main if there's a clear understanding that it's under PD-like terms, but it isn't PD. By the way, I have history here: I once published from ac.uk under an embarrassing 'this is PD' statement and it came back to haunt me. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright in public domain package
Michael Hanke wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:35:54AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > [ Please keep me CC'ed, I'm not subscribed. ] >> [...] >> > I talked to upstream and they replaced those statement with something >> > like the following to make their software acceptable for Debian main: >> > >> > # The immv file was originally part of FSL - FMRIB's Software Library >> > # http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl >> > # immv has now been placed in the public domain. >> > # >> > # Developed at FMRIB (Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance >> > # Imaging of the Brain), Department of Clinical Neurology, Oxford >> > # University, Oxford, UK >> > >> > This should be unambiguous, correct? >> >> Sorry, I think it's ambiguous. The UK Patent Office (www.patent.gov.uk, >> who also handle much to do with copyright, sadly) sometimes uses 'in the >> public domain' to mean that something has been published or offered for >> sale to the public. >> >> How has it 'been placed in the public domain'? I am not aware of any >> way to do that in Oxford besides copyright expiring, or the work somehow >> not qualifying for automatic copyright protection anyway. It may be >> possible to disclaim all copyright interest in a work, but I'm not sure >> how to do that. > I'm not sure whether I understood completely what you said. I thought the > term 'public domain' states that the authors disclaim ANY copyright of > there work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In the US and most other countries, the "public domain" is unambiguous, and means "not subject to copyright". MJ Ray indicates that it is *not* unambiguous in the UK, which sucks. There is no clear legal method under modern US law to intentionally place something in the public domain. The same appears to be true in the UK. We suspect that a clear statement of intent to place something in the public domain would probably be upheld by the courts if it ever came up. It should be as clear as possible, however. (Prior to 1988, works could be placed in the public domain in the US by deliberately publishing them without copyright statements. This is no longer possible, because the Berne Convention SUCKS -- that's the year the US acceeded to it.) In any case, the only person who can place something in the public domain is its (former) copyright holder. People have made very suspicious claims in the past that various things were in the public domain; so it's important that any statement make clear that the right person put it in the public domain. The right person might be the authors or their employers, depending on whether it's a "work for hire" under English law (ick). > I also do not understand what you mean by 'do that in Oxford'. The > original authors of fsliolib (the relevant part of the package wrt this > copyright issue) are part of the nifticlib upstream team. The whole > thing is a joint effort the create a common or standard format for > medical-imaging data. So effectively fsliolib upstream disclaims the > copyright of their own work. If there is a better way to state this > fact, I would be happy to forward this information to upstream. "immv has now been placed in the public domain (no copyright) by its authors and their employers. If this is legally impossible, they irrevocably grant everyone everywhere eternal permission to treat it exactly as if it was in the public domain in every way, and not subject to copyright in any way." I think that would be unambiguous. There are other ways to say the same thing. If they have access to an actual copyright lawyer, they should use one, rather than using my suggested text. (If they like they can show my text to the copyright lawyer.) >> Please ask them to use a MIT/X11-like licence or similar liberal terms. MJ, MIT/Expat is usually preferred to MIT/X11 here. :-) I don't remember why; I think it's more liberal. >> If they need specific help, I think oss-watch.ac.uk is still based in >> Oxford. They should use this facility if they have access to it, certainly. > AFAIK upstream explicitely want this to be without any copyright. See above. :-) Notice that this text is complicated enough that it's just as much work as using the MIT/Expat license, probably more. MIT/Expat is canonically located at: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt (The license is everything except the copyright notices.) If they don't like the conditions, chop them off. This would leave: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
Re: Copyright in public domain package
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:40:40 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: [...] > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:35:54AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] > >> Please ask them to use a MIT/X11-like licence or similar liberal > >terms. > MJ, MIT/Expat is usually preferred to MIT/X11 here. :-) I don't > remember why; I think it's more liberal. Yes, (very slightly) more liberal. Actually the X11 license has the following differences with respect to the Expat license: a) it explicitly forbids use of the name of the copyright holder in advertising or for promotion without written authorization b) in some variants it doesn't explicitly list sublicensing among the allowed activities (but this is irrelevant, since it anyway says "including without limitation") -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpm9ulUufhwq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright in public domain package
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > MIT/Expat is usually preferred to MIT/X11 here. :-) I don't > remember why; I think it's more liberal. It also has the advantage of being (currently) an unambiguous way to refer to the specific license terms; "the terms of the Expat license" has only one probable referent. X11 has been released under several different licenses in its history, so "the terms of the X11 license" must be disambiguated as to *which* "X11 license" is being referred to. -- \ "When I wake up in the morning, I just can't get started until | `\ I've had that first, piping hot pot of coffee. Oh, I've tried | _o__) other enemas..." -- Emo Philips | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote: > Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no > bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here > might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license > header: > > #!bin/bash > # > # Let this be known to all concerned: It is the specific intent of the > # author of this script that any party who may have access to it always > # treat it and its contents as though it were a work to which any and all > # copyrights have expired. > # > > I thought about "s/author/sole author/" but decided against it as not > generic enough. I can see how deciding against it may make it rather > unclear as to whose intent is being expressed, but I think that would be > rather moot anyway in the event of any dispute. I now cut the ribbon > opening this to the free-for-all of opinions... > What about: The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > What about: > > The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain. As yet said on this list, this notion of (and the words) public domain is not common to all countries and more where it exists it can be impossible to place something voluntarily in the public domain. A work *fall*[^1] in the public domain, it is not *placed*. [^1]: excuse my poor english, but the french expression is "tomber dans le domaine public" F. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > What about: > > The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain. As yet said on this list, this notion of (and the words) public domain is not common to all countries and more where it exists it can be impossible to place something voluntarily in the public domain. A work *fall*[^1] in the public domain, it is not *placed*. [^1]: excuse my poor english, but the french expression is "tomber dans le domaine public" The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage." -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public > domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the > author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage." Where is that standardised? For English authors, I'd prefer the OP's statement to this one, but that may be different in countries where the government copyright agency doesn't use 'in the public domain' to mean it's available to the general public. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public > domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the > author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage." Where is that standardised? For English authors, I'd prefer the OP's statement to this one, but that may be different in countries where the government copyright agency doesn't use 'in the public domain' to mean it's available to the general public. It's not 'really' standardised, it is used however by some big projects, e.g. Wikipedia, to release stuff as PD. Also as I said it's something along the lines of that, not that exact wording. I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works in pretty much all jurisdictions. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/26/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines > > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public > > domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the > > author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage." > > Where is that standardised? For English authors, I'd prefer the OP's > statement to this one, but that may be different in countries where > the government copyright agency doesn't use 'in the public domain' to > mean it's available to the general public. It's not 'really' standardised, it is used however by some big projects, e.g. Wikipedia, to release stuff as PD. Also as I said it's something along the lines of that, not that exact wording. One of the exact wordings used by Wikipedia (from Template:PD-self[1]) is : I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. : This applies worldwide. : In case this is not legally possible, : I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any : conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. More can be found from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags[2]. I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works in pretty much all jurisdictions. Do you have any example of such a 'No Rights Reserved' license? I thought that the best one could do would be to use the MIT-license, since there isn't any (generally known) license which would give the recipient more rights. (And custom licenses are generally frowned upon.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-self [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Public_domain -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/26/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put > a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works > in pretty much all jurisdictions. Do you have any example of such a 'No Rights Reserved' license? I thought that the best one could do would be to use the MIT-license, since there isn't any (generally known) license which would give the recipient more rights. (And custom licenses are generally frowned upon.) I would just recommend something similar to the WP template, however the MIT/X license works just as well. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public > domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the > author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage." What about modification and distribution? -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What about modification and distribution? To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.' -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What about modification and distribution? > > To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.' Since, as investigation into copyright laws outside the US has found, even "distribution" doesn't always cover what we understand by that word, we should not attempt to be exhaustive. Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient "all rights otherwise reserved to the copyright holder". -- \ "If you go flying back through time and you see somebody else | `\ flying forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye | _o__)contact." -- Jack Handey | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
Ben Finney wrote: > Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient "all rights > otherwise reserved to the copyright holder". Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights. To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holder of this work hereby declares he will not, now or at any time in the future, exercise any right under copyright, related rights or moral rights applicable to the work against any person or legal entity. This declaration shall be construed to the detriment of the copyright holder to the maximum extent permitted by law. Invalidity or unenforceability of any part of the above shall not affect any other part. (You can't waive your right to protest against mutilation of your literary work, and software is a literary work according to Berne and WIPO.) Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Ben Finney wrote: >> Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient "all rights >> otherwise reserved to the copyright holder". > > Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of > a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights. > > To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holder of this work > hereby declares he will not, now or at any time in the future, exercise > any right under copyright, related rights or moral rights applicable to > the work against any person or legal entity. This declaration shall be > construed to the detriment of the copyright holder to the maximum > extent permitted by law. Invalidity or unenforceability of any part of > the above shall not affect any other part. Finally an actual lawyer steps in. :-) Nice draft. I think that's an excellent idea Only one quibble, but it's an important one: it doesn't waive the rights of heirs or assignees. To the extent possible, we want to do that *too*. Any ideas? > (You can't waive your right to protest against mutilation of > your literary work, and software is a literary work according > to Berne and WIPO.) > > Arnoud > -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license question regarding public domain
>And now I wonder if "License: public domain" in debian/copyright is >enough >for a DFSG free package. Public domain is not a license; it is "not copyrighted". The issue is that the author needs to guarantee that he deliberately abandoned his copyright, because otherwise he has copyright by default. Here is some suggested boilerplate text for debian/copyright: was written by . disclaims all copyright in and places it in the public domain. (Ask the author to say that that's OK.) Maybe this belongs in a FAQ? --Nathanael
Re: public domain no modification: Expat
FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into an MIT one (expat): http://math.hws.edu/javamath/ Thanks everyone for comments/suggestions. On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:10:26 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] >> > That's not my understanding of the issue under consideration: more >> > details are included in my own analysis [1]. >> >> Yes, because as usual your analysis is way out in left field. > > I really cannot understand the reason for all this hatred. > Did I do any nasty things to you in the past? > Are you unable to have a discussion without indulging in ad hominem > attacks? > >> >> > My impression is that clause 2 introduces odd restrictions on how >> > modified versions are packaged >> >> "package" is synonymous with "name" in this case. DFSG#4 says free works >> may require a name change when modified. > > As Walter Landry pointed out [2], these packaging restrictions > interfere with the ability to create drop-in replacements and with the > freedom to translate the work into other programming languages. > These restrictions seem to go beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4. > > [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/04/msg00017.html > >> >> > and insists that modifications be documented in comments (which, depending >> > on how it is interpreted, may be a very strong restriction). >> >> You mean like this restriction? >> >> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices >> stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > No, I mean like the restriction actually included in the clause under > discussion: "the modifications are documented in comments". > > This restriction looks definitely different from the one you quoted > from the GNU GPL v2. > > The GPL just requires me to write notices where I state that I > changed the files and the date of any change. > > On the other hand, the restriction under discussion requires me to > document the modifications in comments. As noted by Walter Landry [2], > this forces the use of comments, which may be syntactically > unavailable in some cases. > Moreover, this restriction is a bit vague, and could be even > interpreted as requiring that the reasoning behind each modification is > explained and discussed thoroughly in comments. This would be a very > good documenting practice, but mandating it through licensing terms > looks fairly overreaching (at least to me). > >> >> You know, the one in the GPLv2? >> >> Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd. > > I don't think so, since, as explained above, the restriction under > consideration is different from the one found in the GNU GPL v2. > > > -- > http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt > New GnuPG key, see the transition document! > . Francesco Poli . > GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CA+7wUsxi9fge1Uszx¼r6qsvkmcabsaedruzzgqjnhtygn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: public domain no modification: Expat
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:05:56 +0200 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into > an MIT one (expat): > > http://math.hws.edu/javamath/ This seems to be great news! :-) I hope the new license (Expat/MIT) applies to all the files in the package (that is to say, to both categories of files: those that were previously under a simpler license and those that were previously under a nastier license). > > Thanks everyone for comments/suggestions. Thanks a lot to you, for persuading upstream to switch to a well-known and widely-used Free Software license! This is really appreciated, at least from my side. Bye, and thanks again. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpKeexChrONh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Questions regarding public-domain (well, again)
Hi, i've already wrote that i work on a migration of swi-prolog package to machine-readable d/copyright. I have some more questions and need your advises. There are several files which contain a copyright notice stating that these files are in public domain. Well, I understand the difficulty and problems regarding public domain, and read some previous discussions on debian-legal@l.d.o. These copyright notices are (for example): This code is in the public domain and has no copyright. Or: The libtai code is in the public domain, so you can use it in your own programs. Others contain just something like as follows (from the package documentation): This example code is in the public domain. I believe that for a great bulk of these public domain files I can get a special notice or explanation (if it is necessary), since the author of these files is one of the authors and the current maintainer of SWI-Prolog itself. So, the main question is what to do with these files, and if it is OK to keep them (maybe asking upstream for some clarification of their copyright statements), then how to corretly fill the d/copyright file? I mean that 7.1.1 of Machine-readable debian/copyright file (version 1.0) is not clear for me. Currently I have something like as follows: Files: packages/clib/demo/* packages/http/examples/demo_daemon.pl packages/xpce/man/course/bib.pl packages/xpce/man/course/fam.pl packages/xpce/man/course/ftp.pl packages/xpce/man/course/learner.pl packages/xpce/man/course/lib/prompt.pl packages/xpce/man/userguide/examples/graphedit.pl packages/xpce/man/info/dialog.pl packages/xpce/man/info/which.pl packages/xpce/man/info/window.pl packages/xpce/src/gnu/getdate.c packages/cpp/likes.cpp packages/cpp/test.cpp packages/cpp/test.pl src/libtai/* src/tools/functions.pm src/tools/update-deps scripts/swipl-bt customize/dotxpcerc library/dialect/bim.pl License: public-domain As I understand I should put some explanations right after 'License: public-domain', right? And what to do with lintian warnings: W: swi-prolog source: missing-field-in-dep5-copyright copyright (paragraph at line 244) W: swi-prolog source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright public-domain (paragraph at line 244) Should I override them? With regards, Lev Lamberov
Re: Is public domain software DFSG-compliant?
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 06:51:15PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote: > Is public domain software DFSG-compliant? > > Sorry if this is a FAQ; I couldn't find the answer anywhere on the > Debian web site. I am asking after reading this text on > http://www.debian.org/intro/free: > >"Truly free software is always free. Software that is placed in the > public domain can be snapped up and put into non-free programs. > Any improvements then made are lost to society. To stay free, > software must be copyrighted and licensed." Why does that page say this? This is the FSF's agenda, not Debian's, and claims that the X11 and other simple, permissive licenses are not "truly free", which is ridiculous. I don't think an "intro to Free Software" on Debian's site should be making such a statement. There may be practical problems with public domain in some jurisdictions, but that aside, it, as well as permissive, non-copyleft licenses, are certainly "truly"- and DFSG-free. > Please CC me on any responses; I'm not subscribed to this list. Please set your Mail-Followup-To header accordingly. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is public domain software DFSG-compliant?
> >"Truly free software is always free. Software that is placed in the > > public domain can be snapped up and put into non-free programs. > > Any improvements then made are lost to society. To stay free, > > software must be copyrighted and licensed." With some perhaps minor changes, this would make sense for our site. A possibly relevant point here is that while we maintain software under licenses that allow software to be relicensed in a non-free fashion, we will not maintain software instances or changes which have been relicensed in this fashion. Another probably relevant point is that we're sceptical about distributing unlicensed software. In some cases it might be in the public domain, but we really need someone claiming that it's in the public domain before the rest of us can treat it that way. In other words, while the treatment of the topic might bother some people, this does cover valid issues. Ultimately: there is a spectrum of freeness. We do draw a line which accepts software less free than what this paragraph is talking about, but I don't think it's incorrect to acknowledge that that spectrum exists. I'd hate to see this discarded entirely, or replaced with something more verbose which conveys less information. -- Raul
Re: Is public domain software DFSG-compliant?
> Is public domain software DFSG-compliant? > > Sorry if this is a FAQ; Actually it sort of is, albeit in an unofficial one. http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#public_domain Googling "DFSG public domain FAQ" snags it. -- Barak A. Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hamilton Institute, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland http://www-bcl.cs.nuim.ie/~barak/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is public domain software DFSG-compliant?
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 06:51:15PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote: >> Is public domain software DFSG-compliant? >> >> Sorry if this is a FAQ; I couldn't find the answer anywhere on the >> Debian web site. I am asking after reading this text on >> http://www.debian.org/intro/free: >> >>"Truly free software is always free. Software that is placed in the >> public domain can be snapped up and put into non-free programs. >> Any improvements then made are lost to society. To stay free, >> software must be copyrighted and licensed." > > Why does that page say this? This is the FSF's agenda, not Debian's, > and claims that the X11 and other simple, permissive licenses are not > "truly free", which is ridiculous. I don't think an "intro to Free > Software" on Debian's site should be making such a statement. > > There may be practical problems with public domain in some jurisdictions, > but that aside, it, as well as permissive, non-copyleft licenses, are > certainly "truly"- and DFSG-free. Thanks for the responses (from you and Barak Pearlmutter). Now it seems clear that public domain softwaer is DFSG-compliant, despite what the above page says. A suggestion: If Debian internally has a list of licenses considered DFSG-compliant (and others DFSG-noncompliant) by the project, it might be good to publish that list on a web page. The FSF does something similar at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and the OSI likewise at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ I didn't find any similar list posted by Debian. If there were one, public domain status could be included on it. >> Please CC me on any responses; I'm not subscribed to this list. > > Please set your Mail-Followup-To header accordingly. Thanks. I didn't know about that; now I've started using it. -Karl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to properly specify "Public Domain"?
Maybe this thread helps: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00018.html On 30/03/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Summary: > > If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the > public domain, do I have to contact the author and let him clarify this, > or can I leave things as they are? > > > I recall to have been told that, in order to make a piece of software > free, it is not sufficient to say "This file is in the public domain", > but that instead one has to write something like "Everybody is free to > use, distribute and/or modify it". > > On the other hand, I have learned meanwhile that in some legislations > the term Public Domain does indeed have a defined meaning. From this I > would conclude that declaring something "Public Domain" should be > sufficient, and that effectively no court could sanely assert a > copyright infringement if someone used a file on that basis, even when > the term doesn't have a well-defined meaning there - at least if the > copyright holder is from a country where it has. > > Regards, Frank > > -- > Frank Küster > Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. > Zürich > Debian Developer (teTeX) > >
Re: how to properly specify "Public Domain"?
"Patrick Herzig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe this thread helps: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00018.html Sorry, not really (or I've missed the relevant mails). I read a lot about whether public domain licenses work as they are intended, and something about how to properly phrase them, but nothing about whether "This file is in the public domain" is sufficient information to say that the file is DFSG free. >> If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the >> public domain, do I have to contact the author and let him clarify this, >> or can I leave things as they are? The fact is that there's at least one file like this in tetex-base. And I'm not sure whether the copyright holder can still be reached. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: how to properly specify "Public Domain"?
On 2006/03/30, at 21:04, Frank Küster wrote: On the other hand, I have learned meanwhile that in some legislations the term Public Domain does indeed have a defined meaning. From this I would conclude that declaring something "Public Domain" should be sufficient, and that effectively no court could sanely assert a copyright infringement if someone used a file on that basis, even when the term doesn't have a well-defined meaning there - at least if the copyright holder is from a country where it has. My understanding of "public domain" is that a public domain document is not covered by copyright law anymore. Which means, since there are no copyright owner, there are no use licenses. A license is given by a copyright owner, if there is no copyright, there is no license. Period. And everybody becomes free to use the file without any restriction, even restrictions related to closing the file's contents (or rather an instance of the file, since no one can claim copyright to the original contents). Public domain is clearly defined in copyright law, and that should be so in any country that has any kind of copyright law. Copyright only extends to a certain period of time after which it does not exist anymore. Maybe you should check copyright law to get proper reference. Copyright and public domain are two sides of the same coin. Jean-Christophe Helary
Re: how to properly specify "Public Domain"?
JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Public domain is clearly defined in copyright law, and that should be > so in any country that has any kind of copyright law. I fear there are a couple of countries that didn't obey your "should". > Copyright only > extends to a certain period of time after which it does not exist > anymore. That idea probably exists everywhere, but you can't say "treat this file as if I died 70 years ago" in the EU, AFAIK. And all that doesn't answer my question: Whether it's debian-legal's consensus that "This file is in the public domain" grants us enough rights to distribute it in main, or non-free, or not at all. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: how to properly specify "Public Domain"?
"This file is in the public domain" is sufficient in Belgian legislation, and in any droit d'auteur legislation I know of. sincerely, Batist On 30/03/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Summary: > > If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the > public domain, do I have to contact the author and let him clarify this, > or can I leave things as they are? > > > I recall to have been told that, in order to make a piece of software > free, it is not sufficient to say "This file is in the public domain", > but that instead one has to write something like "Everybody is free to > use, distribute and/or modify it". > > On the other hand, I have learned meanwhile that in some legislations > the term Public Domain does indeed have a defined meaning. From this I > would conclude that declaring something "Public Domain" should be > sufficient, and that effectively no court could sanely assert a > copyright infringement if someone used a file on that basis, even when > the term doesn't have a well-defined meaning there - at least if the > copyright holder is from a country where it has. > > Regards, Frank > > -- > Frank Küster > Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. > Zürich > Debian Developer (teTeX) > >
Re: how to properly specify "Public Domain"?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote: > JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Public domain is clearly defined in copyright law, and that should be > > so in any country that has any kind of copyright law. > > I fear there are a couple of countries that didn't obey your > "should". > > And all that doesn't answer my question: Whether it's debian-legal's > consensus that "This file is in the public domain" grants us enough > rights to distribute it in main, or non-free, or not at all. We've generally considered it to give enough rights to distribute in main, assuming the statement is clear that that's what it is doing. An ideal situtation would be a statement that the work is in the public domain, followed by a statement that it is licensed under MIT (or similar) if that is not possible in the licensee's jurisdiction. If you've got the time to communicate with the author to request that, it'd be good. Otherwise, I don't believe the ftpmasters are requiring this from public domain works yet. Don Armstrong -- "I'm a rational being--of a sort--rational enough, at least, to see the symptoms of insanity around me. And I'm human, the same as the poeple I think of as victims when my guard drops. It's at least possible I'm even crazier than my fellows, whom I'm tempted to pity. "There seems only one thing to do, and that's get drunk" -- Chad C. Mulligan (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar p390) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: how to properly specify "Public Domain"?
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you've got the time to communicate with the author to request that, > it'd be good. Otherwise, I don't believe the ftpmasters are requiring > this from public domain works yet. Thank you, and to Nathanael. I'll interpret that as "note that down, but care for the real licensing problems first" - there are plenty of them. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Unknown license bits and public domain
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 11:01:30AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > Now, the question is: how long we should wait for nobody claim a copyright > for > the code to have it in Public Domain ? Until author's death + X years, unfortunately :( And to make it even worse, X is increasing at a rate faster than 1. Regards, -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unknown license bits and public domain
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked debian-legal: > Unfortunately John L Allen is unreachible to clarify the license terms of his > piece of code [3]. > > Now, the question is: how long we should wait for nobody claim a copyright > for > the code to have it in Public Domain ? [...] 70 years after the death of John L Allen, according to http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/duration/ and http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html Sorry. Has anyone asked Northrop Grumman Corporation where he went? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unknown license bits and public domain
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 18:21, MJ Ray wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked debian-legal: > > Unfortunately John L Allen is unreachible to clarify the license terms of > > his piece of code [3]. > > > > Now, the question is: how long we should wait for nobody claim a > > copyright for the code to have it in Public Domain ? [...] > > 70 years after the death of John L Allen, according to > http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/duration/ and > http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html > > Sorry. Has anyone asked Northrop Grumman Corporation where he went? NG is a pretty large and busy corporation ;-) ... whom to ask there ? A much more feasible solution is to tracк his footprints on the net. Look at #335278 to see what has been currently investigated (vcard with appearantly invalid email address, but with some phones left, aling with some recent postings to rsync and perl5-porters mailing list, I'm not subscribed at). -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unknown license bits and public domain
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wednesday 28 June 2006 18:21, MJ Ray wrote: > > 70 years after the death of John L Allen [...] > > Has anyone asked Northrop Grumman Corporation where he went? > > NG is a pretty large and busy corporation ;-) ... whom to ask there ? postmaster or any general enquiries mailbox. Good luck with your alternative methods. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is this translation in the Public Domain?
Hi all, I am involved in the packaging of an Urdu translation of Qur'an for Zekr <http://packages.debian.org/sid/zekr>. This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Rida_Khan> Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in the Public Domain. I would like to know if this translation is eligible for being merged to free/non-free repositories of Debian. Would you please kindly guide me in this issue? Regards, Mohammad -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Advice on an almost public domain package
Hi all, I have found a software package I'd like to make into a proper Debian package. Now the problem is a kind of mixed license. The package is Gnosis-Utils: http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnosisxml/?topic_id=912%2C868 And the license can be found here: http://www.gnosis.cx/download/gnosis/doc/LICENSE The problem is that some files are in the public domain (put there by the author), while some files aren't (articles relating to the python module). The author distributes all of them in the same tar-ball. The author has no interest in changing the packaging he currently has (e.g. separating the copyrighted articles from the source package), but since the code is in PD I see no legal problem in simply repackage it myself, without the articles. This new package could then be used for a Debian package. Am I missing something here? /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://magnus.therning.org/ Maturity is when you quite blaming other people for your problems -- Craig Burton signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Sita Sings the Blues goes public domain
Sita Sings the Blues goes public domain (CC0): http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/ ... but not DFSG-free. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Re: how to properly specify "Public Domain"?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And all that doesn't answer my question: Whether it's debian-legal's > consensus that "This file is in the public domain" grants us enough > rights to distribute it in main, or non-free, or not at all. It's good enough, if it's placed there by the author/former copyright holder. We prefer "The author of this file places this file in the public domain," to make it clear that this wasn't just slapped on by some other random person who didn't understand copyright law (since that's an occasional problem). It's not clear that it's actually legally possible to place something in the public domain in the United States. :-P If it isn't, however, we suspect that courts would interpret the statement of the author's intent to place the file in the public domain, to mean that the author granted permission to everyone in the world to treat it as if it were in the public domain. (Which is sufficient.) If the author wants to be really careful, he should write: "The author of this file places this file in the public domain. If that is legally impossible, the author grants an irrevocable license to anyone and everyone to treat this file exactly as if it were in the public domain." That's my preferred "Public Domain" specification. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this translation in the Public Domain?
Mohammad Derakhshani wrote: > This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Rida_Khan> > > Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in > the Public Domain. Probably. First, the work was translated in 1910 [1] and India apparently didn't have a Copyright Act until 1914 [2]. India also didn't join the Berne Convention until April 1, 1928 [3]. Berne member states then will not recognize any copyright in the work (art. 3(1) of Berne). Even if copyright protection was available to the work when it was created, the copyright would have expired 50 years after the death of the author. Arnoud [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzul_Iman [2] http://copyright.gov.in/ [3] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this translation in the Public Domain?
On 21/11/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mohammad Derakhshani wrote: > > This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Rida_Khan> > > > > Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in > > the Public Domain. > > Probably. First, the work was translated in 1910 [1] and India > apparently didn't have a Copyright Act until 1914 [2]. India > also didn't join the Berne Convention until April 1, 1928 [3]. > Berne member states then will not recognize any copyright in > the work (art. 3(1) of Berne). > > Even if copyright protection was available to the work when > it was created, the copyright would have expired 50 years > after the death of the author. Agreed. Even within Europe, if the 70 year period were to apply, any copyright would have expired in 1991. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice on an almost public domain package
Not all jurisdictions recognize the ability of authors to put their works into the public domain. Perhaps you could get him to release the code under a very permissive license, such as the MIT/X11 license? If that's not acceptable, a public-domain declaration is, I think, good enough for Debian -- you should be perfectly clear packaging the code. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice on an almost public domain package
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not all jurisdictions recognize the ability of authors to put their > works into the public domain. Perhaps you could get him to release > the code under a very permissive license, such as the MIT/X11 license? Having just read the license -- much easier if the text is included instead of linked -- it's clear this author has already considered that. > If that's not acceptable, a public-domain declaration is, I think, > good enough for Debian -- you should be perfectly clear packaging the code. It looks perfectly reasonable to distribute the PD parts of this package. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice on an almost public domain package
On Feb 5, 2004, at 12:44, Magnus Therning wrote: And the license can be found here: http://www.gnosis.cx/download/gnosis/doc/LICENSE Despite silly things like "and in fact do anything you could do with content of your own creation," I think it's fine to put the public-domain stuff in main. The rest looks like it could go in non-free, if you want.
Re: Advice on an almost public domain package
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:04:19PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Not all jurisdictions recognize the ability of authors to put their > works into the public domain. I don't believe this to be accurate. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Advice on an almost public domain package
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:04:19PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Not all jurisdictions recognize the ability of authors to put their >> works into the public domain. > > I don't believe this to be accurate. Accurate or not, I doubt the author would sue anyone in one of those places for using the code. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice on an almost public domain package
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:18:40AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Accurate or not, I doubt the author would sue anyone in one of those > places for using the code. That doesn't matter. His heirs may. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Sita Sings the Blues goes public domain
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 06:34:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Sita Sings the Blues goes public domain (CC0): > http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/ > ... but not DFSG-free. In what way is CC-0 not dfsg-free? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sita Sings the Blues goes public domain
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > In what way is CC-0 not dfsg-free? Perhaps I should have said not suitable for Debian main; the source code is not buildable/modifiable/readable using Debian main since it requires Adobe Flash. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/save_sita_sings_blues_flash_format_can_you_convert_fla http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/discovering_sita_sings_blues http://archive.org/details/Sita_Sings_the_Blues_Files http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/03/its-2013-do-you-know-where-my-free-vector-animation-software-is/ In addition, distributing the full movie (with music) in large quantities requires payment to various music industry entities: http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/license.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6gcpuw+wfw+vfmjz1qrqdmglsmcqxhqzpuupjrao9p...@mail.gmail.com
Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Hello, I have a few questions regarding public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright files: 1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... right? Would it be better to replace this with: # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. ? 2. With the following stanza in debian/copyright (DEP-5): Files: examples/* License: public-domain I get two lintian warnings, the first of which being missing-field-in-dep5-copyright for the Copyright field IIRC, and the second one being 'missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright public-domain'. I can silence the first warning by adding: Copyright: These files have been put in the public domain. to the stanza (is this correct?). However, I am reluctant to write more things in the License field (or to add a stand-alone license paragraph) only to make lintian happy, since the code is just in the public domain with no restrictions whatsoever. Quoting <https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/>: When the License field in a paragraph has the short name public-domain, the remaining lines of the field /must/ explain exactly what exemption the corresponding files for that paragraph have from default copyright restrictions. but there are no particular exemptions applying here AFAICT... What do you suggest? Thanks in advance for your answers, please Cc me as I am not subscribed. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wq93q5yk@frougon.crabdance.com
Is this Public Domain? And is it DFSG-free?
Hello, I'm looking at a network analysis tool called 'pchar', which has the following license: This work was first produced by an employee of Sandia National Laboratories under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy. Sandia National Laboratories dedicates whatever right, title or interest it may have in this software to the public. Although no license from Sandia is needed to copy and use this software, copying and using the software might infringe the rights of others. This software is provided as-is. SANDIA DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. What bothers me is the sentence "Although no license from Sandia is needed to copy and use this software, copying and using the software might infringe the rights of others". The author himself doesn't see any problems, as he has placed pchar in the public domain, which is less restrictive than, e.g., GPL. As I understand it, the author (or Sandia, depending on which kind of agreement he has with them) still retains copyright to the software even though he released it to the public domain. Is this correct? To sum it up: 1) Is the license DFSG-free as it stands? 2) Can the author re-distribute his software under, e.g., the BSD license now, despite having released it with the above license? Thanks in advance, Pontus -- Pontus Lidman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Software Engineer No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up. Scene: www.dc-s.com | MUD: tyme.envy.com 6969 | irc: irc.quakenet.eu.org
"placed into public domain" software from droit d'auteur developers
If someone claims that he has placed his software into public domain, and the person is subject to the jurisdiction of one of the droit d'auteur countries (Germany for example[1]), shall we interpret this claim as null and void, or as the grant of very broad usage rights to the general public? [1] Over here, you can't give up some of your rights as an author, much like you can't sell yourself into slavery. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: extracting a public-domain part from an anthology
Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ah, here's an analogy that makes sense. Consider software that is an > anthology of works by several authors under several licenses. Clearly the > compliling (not in the software sense) author has performed significant > work. However, the license for the anthology does not necessarily trump the > license for the individual works. You can make any use of public-domain > writings, even if the copy you're reading from is a copyrighted volume. > > I can create derivative works from Homer's _Illiad_ even though the copy I'm > basing it on is in the Norton Anthology of Literature. Most ancient documents exist in many different versions. There is significant work involved in putting together a particular text. I would guess that this work is covered by copyright, so you can't just take the text from a recent and expensive academic edition and put it on the web. Even if the compiling author is claiming to follow a particular edition that is out of copyright, I would guess that the compiling author still gets a new copyright; if a book is old enough to be out of copyright, obtaining a copy of it is a non-trivial task[*]. Small differences may be introduced into the anthology, by accident or deliberately, and these differences would be sufficient to prove that you took your text from the anthology rather than from the original edition. So, extracting a public-domain text from a non-public-domain anthology looks quite risky to me. This is why we need copyleft, of course. I hope that extracting a DFCL component from an anthology will be a safe thing to do. Edmund [*] I once wanted a reliable text of some Edgar Allan Poe. There were versions all over the web, of course, but they were all slightly different. I made a list of the differences and consulted a microfilm copy of an original edition in Cambridge university library to resolve them. I invested several hours work into that exercise, so maybe I could, as a sort of amateur textual critic, claim copyright in the final result. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Le Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:11AM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit : > > 1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement: > > # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... > # Copyright (C) 2000 ... > # > # This program is in the public domain. > >but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... >right? Would it be better to replace this with: > > # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... > # 2000 ... > # > # This program is in the public domain. > >? > > 2. With the following stanza in debian/copyright (DEP-5): > > Files: examples/* > License: public-domain > >I get two lintian warnings, the first of which being >missing-field-in-dep5-copyright for the Copyright field IIRC, and the >second one being 'missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright >public-domain'. Dear Florent, for the first point, please do not modify the upstream copyright statements unless you have the permission from the authors: it is more likely to create new confusions than to clarify the situation. For the entry in the machine-readable copyright file, since the information available suggests that the authors claim a copyright, I would just consider that “This program is in the public domain.” is the license of the file: Files: examples/* Copyright: (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 author A (C) 2000 author B License: says-public-domain This program is in the public domain. Not elegant, but accurate. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140916100412.gc2...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Florent Rougon writes: > 1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement: > > # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... > # Copyright (C) 2000 ... > # > # This program is in the public domain. > > but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... >right? Right. The quoted statement is self-contradictory. It asserts copyright, and gives no grounds for the “public domain” claim. It also fails to grant license for any of the DFSG freedoms. So by strict interpretation of the statement in view of rigid application of copyright law, the work is effectively non-free software. > Would it be better to replace this with: > > # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... > # 2000 ... > # > # This program is in the public domain. > >? Even in the absence of a copyright statement, copyright still obtains in any Berne Convention signatory jurisdiction. Merely stating that a work is in the public domain does not clearly make it so. Since it's nearly impossible to remove copyright in a work under most jurisdictions, the best course is to write the copyright statement to clearly attribute the copyright holders and years of publication. What is needed, for this work to clearly be free software, is for the copyright holders to explicitly grant license in the work, saying unambiguously what freedoms all recipients have. Since the apparent intent is to: * Show attribution of the copyright holders. * Permit every recipient a very free license. I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0> is a good one IMO. > Thanks in advance for your answers, please Cc me as I am not > subscribed. Done. I hope this helps. -- \ “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than | `\ it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” —George Bernard Shaw | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/851trbx4tv@benfinney.id.au
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
> I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly > marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license > conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 > http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0> is a good one IMO. If they really want public domain, though, then CC-0 is good [1]. (However, it isn't OSI approved because it explicitly does not grant patent/trademark rights.) [1] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/541821d1.5040...@bitmessage.ch
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright"):
> Florent Rougon writes:
> > 1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement:
> > # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
> > # Copyright (C) 2000 ...
> > #
> > # This program is in the public domain.
> >but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright...
> >right?
>
> Right. The quoted statement is self-contradictory. It asserts copyright,
> and gives no grounds for the “public domain” claim.
>
> It also fails to grant license for any of the DFSG freedoms. So by
> strict interpretation of the statement in view of rigid application of
> copyright law, the work is effectively non-free software.
This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal
documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author.
In this case the author's intent is clear: the author wants to
disclaim the monopolies granted by copyright law. The statement is to
be read as a permissive licence. So no-one is in any danger of being
sued by the (purported) copyrightholder.
Obviously it would be better if the authors fixed this technical
defect, but it has no significant practical consequences.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21528.26679.572646.86...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ian Jackson writes: > This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal > documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author. We would hope so, yes. They also take into account the intent of the *current* copyright holder. Courts are also not infallible guardians of the public interest; a hostile future copyright holder can wield the lack of a clear grant of license to cause a lot more trouble for recipients than would be the case if the license grant were clear. We have ample instances of that having been done in the past, enough to be cautious in treating ambiguous and contradictory copyright statements. > In this case the author's intent is clear: the author wants to > disclaim the monopolies granted by copyright law. The statement is to > be read as a permissive licence. So no-one is in any danger of being > sued by the (purported) copyrightholder. On this I can't see why you modify “copyright holder”. You think this is an effective divestment of copyright in the work? In all Berne Convention jurisdictions where Debian recipients will operate? I don't. It seems clear to me that “This work is in the public domain” is *not* an effective way to cause a work to have no copyright holder. That work is still restricted under copyright law, despite the intent of that statement. > Obviously it would be better if the authors fixed this technical > defect I'm glad that's a point of agreement. -- \“I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any | `\ view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and | _o__) opposite view.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85sijruz5j@benfinney.id.au
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Thank you for your replies. It's a pity that properly releasing something in the public domain is apparently so difficult. The intent here was to make sure that anyone be free to copy anything from this file and use it in derivative works without restriction since it is a demo for a library. Unfortunately, as I feared and you confirmed, the licensing statement is technically incorrect. So, it would be better, and probably possible, to relicense. I thank you for the suggestions of the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 and CC-0. However, both of these licenses are a pain to read for "normal" human beings, even if other very common licenses are much worse in this respect (and I know debian-legal readers like such mumbo-jumbo :-). For this reason, I am more inclined to consider using BSD-2, BSD-3 or WTFPL (yes, I know the license can only be changed with permission of all copyright holders). Thanks and regards -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87a95yy3np@frougon.crabdance.com
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Hello again,
[ Remainder: this thread is about a file whose copyright/licensing
statement is of the form:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public domain.
It has been established by the mavens from this list that the
copyright statements contradict the "public domain" assertion, and
that simply stating "This program is in the public domain" is not
enough to make it so in general. As a consequence, I am trying to have
the file relicensed under a proper license such as BSD-2 or BSD-3. I
have also taken note of the suggestions given here about the Apache
Software Foundation License 2.0 (which I am still considering) and the
CC-0, thank you. ]
Sorry for the little delay. I have recently tried to contact the person
who is most likely, appart from me, to legitimately own some copyright
over the file in question in this thread, namely demo.py from
pythondialog (python-dialog in Debian). This person has been friendly in
the past, there is no problem on this side, however time is pressing
because of the imminent freeze of jessie and I am therefore considering
the other alternative.
[ Motivation: the python-dialog package in Debian is terribly outdated,
has a few bugs including this little licensing problem, and supports
neither Unicode nor Python 3, contrary to current upstream versions.
As the upstream maintainer, I'd like to have it either removed from
Debian or updated (and the packaging part of the update is not a
problem, I already have something ready using modern packaging
practices, namely dh, dh_python3 and pybuild).
BTW, if you are interested, the next upstream version will have much
nicer, Sphinx-based documentation---you can see a snapshot of the
ongoing work at
<http://people.via.ecp.fr/~flo/tmp/pythondialog-newdoc-snapshot/_build/html/>.
]
So, given that demo.py and its ancestor dialog.py from pythondialog 1.0
have very very little in common now, I wonder if the copyright notices
from the two other contributors are still relevant (I have kept them so
far as a matter of courtesy and to be sure to be on the safe side). What
remains is mostly a few English sentences such as "One moment... Just
wasting some time here to test the infobox...", "What's your name?",
etc. that are used to illustrate the different widgets...
To make this more concrete, the original file is dialog.py at:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/pythondialog/files/pythondialog/1.0/
while demo.py from current upstream Git can be found at:
https://sourceforge.net/p/pythondialog/code/ci/master/tree/examples/demo.py
As far as I can tell, the parts from current demo.py that are closest to
the original dialog.py are of the following kind:
Old:
d.infobox(
"One moment... Just wasting some time here to test the infobox...")
New:
d.infobox("One moment, please. Just wasting some time here to "
"show you the infobox...")
Old:
if d.yesno("Do you like this demo?"):
d.msgbox("Excellent! Here's the source code:")
else:
d.msgbox("Send your complaints to /dev/null")
New:
def yesno_demo(self, with_help=True):
if not with_help:
# Simple version, without the "Help" button (the return value is
# True or False):
return d.Yesno("\nDo you like this demo?", yes_label="Yes, I do",
no_label="No, I do not", height=10, width=40,
title="An Important Question")
# 'yesno' dialog box with custom Yes, No and Help buttons
while True:
reply = d.Yesnohelp("\nDo you like this demo?",
yes_label="Yes, I do", no_label="No, I do not",
help_label="Please help me!", height=10,
width=60, title="An Important Question")
[...]
def msgbox_demo(self, answer):
if answer:
msg = "Excellent! Press OK to see its source code (or another " \
"file if not in the correct directory)."
else:
msg = "Well, feel free to send your complaints to /dev/null!\n\n" \
"Sincerely yours, etc."
d.msgbox(msg, width=50)
Old:
food = d.checklist("What sandwich toppings do you like?",
list=["Catsup", "Mustard", "Pesto", "Mayonaise", "Horse radish",
"Sun-dried tomatoes"], checked=[0,0,0,1,1,1])
New:
def checklist_demo(self):
# We could put non-empty items here (not only the tag for each entry)
code, tags = d.checklist(
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Le Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 06:50:49PM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit : > > [ Remainder: this thread is about a file whose copyright/licensing > statement is of the form: > > # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... > # Copyright (C) 2000 ... > # > # This program is in the public domain. > > It has been established by the mavens from this list that the > copyright statements contradict the "public domain" assertion, and > that simply stating "This program is in the public domain" is not > enough to make it so in general. As a consequence, I am trying to have > the file relicensed under a proper license such as BSD-2 or BSD-3. I > have also taken note of the suggestions given here about the Apache > Software Foundation License 2.0 (which I am still considering) and the > CC-0, thank you. ] > > Sorry for the little delay. I have recently tried to contact the person > who is most likely, appart from me, to legitimately own some copyright > over the file in question in this thread, namely demo.py from > pythondialog (python-dialog in Debian). This person has been friendly in > the past, there is no problem on this side, however time is pressing > because of the imminent freeze of jessie and I am therefore considering > the other alternative. Hello Florent, you can decouple the two issues: - The package is totally redistributable in Debian as it is, you do not need to relicense the files to update to the new upstream release. - You can work on the resolving the apparent contradiction at the pace you want, you can even consider it a wishlist, “patch welcome” issue only. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141011003846.ga14...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Florent Rougon writes: > It has been established by the mavens from this list that the > copyright statements contradict the "public domain" assertion, and > that simply stating "This program is in the public domain" is not > enough to make it so in general. I've been a primary proponent of that point of view, and I think it's probably correct. But I wouldn't claim it's *established*; no qualified legal expert has said anything so definite here, I believe. Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable — especially because it's quite easy for the copyright holder to correctly apply a known simple free-software license that grants all the relevant permissions. > So, under the assumption that I don't hear from the original author > soon enough, is it necessary to artificially rewrite these examples to > use different English sentences, or are the original parts too trivial > to be copyrightable in the first place? I wouldn't want to assert whether a judge might consider some work too trivial to be covered by copyright. If you think it's an easy task, it's certainly safer to replace them if you want to relicense. But there are also established examples of successfully relicensing works without getting explicit permission from every copyright holder of every portion of the work. So that's an option to explore also. > Thanks for taking the time to read me! I hope you can get a legally-qualified opinion to help you with these questions. Thank you for taking seriously the legal freedom of Debian recipients. -- \ “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our | `\ inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter | _o__)the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams, 1770-12-04 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85y4snsa45@benfinney.id.au
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright"):
> Florent Rougon writes:
> > It has been established by the mavens from this list that the
> > copyright statements contradict the "public domain" assertion, and
> > that simply stating "This program is in the public domain" is not
> > enough to make it so in general.
>
> I've been a primary proponent of that point of view, and I think it's
> probably correct. But I wouldn't claim it's *established*; no qualified
> legal expert has said anything so definite here, I believe.
I disagree with Ben. The question of freeness is a question of
practical capacity, not a theoretical exercise. We should be asking:
can our users and downstreams exercise the freedoms we want them to
have, without taking significant risks ?
> Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective
> divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients
> operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable —
Are you aware of _any_ case where a piece of software was released
with a statement from its copyrightholders saying it was "public
domain", but where later the copyrightholders reneged on the implied
permissions ?
Note that even copyrightholders who use proper Free copyright licences
sometimes make legally unfounded claims against us or our downstreams.
Empirically I would be very surprised if the risk from legally-naive
copyrightholders, who try to `put things in the public domain', was
greater than the risk from copyrightholders who issue proper licences.
We're not talking about a situation where the whole thing might be a
deliberate trap. If someone like IBM or Oracle came out with a
`public domain' statement we should be very suspicious - but that's
not (ever) what we're dealing with.
And all of this is before we get into questions of estoppel (or its
equivalent in various jurisdictions).
> especially because it's
> quite easy for the copyright holder to correctly apply a known simple
> free-software license that grants all the relevant permissions.
I don't see how it allegedly being `easy' to fix increases the risk to
Debian and our users and downstreams. It's totally irrelevant.
And, of course, it's not true. Licensing decisions are
political decisons, and often contested. Issues which mix politics
and legal technicalities in this way are not `easy'.
By `easy' you mean `easy if you do what I say'. But putting forward
such an opinion in a political context is at the very least arrogant
and can appear disingenuous.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21563.57745.843454.962...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
>> Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective >> divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients >> operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable — In addition to what Ian said, Debian already accepts Public Domain software, even though public domain is completely meaningless in some jurisdictions. > Are you aware of _any_ case where a piece of software was released > with a statement from its copyrightholders saying it was "public > domain", but where later the copyrightholders reneged on the implied > permissions ? > > Note that even copyrightholders who use proper Free copyright licences > sometimes make legally unfounded claims against us or our downstreams. > Empirically I would be very surprised if the risk from legally-naive > copyrightholders, who try to `put things in the public domain', was > greater than the risk from copyrightholders who issue proper licences. > > We're not talking about a situation where the whole thing might be a > deliberate trap. If someone like IBM or Oracle came out with a > `public domain' statement we should be very suspicious - but that's > not (ever) what we're dealing with. > > And all of this is before we get into questions of estoppel (or its > equivalent in various jurisdictions). Theoretically, this could fail the "Tentacles of Evil" test. Although I think that the estoppel defense would be enough to stop this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543c2dec.10...@bitmessage.ch
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright"):
> > Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an
> > effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where
> > Debian recipients operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable —
>
> Are you aware of _any_ case where a piece of software was released
> with a statement from its copyrightholders saying it was "public
> domain", but where later the copyrightholders reneged on the implied
> permissions ?
I'm not. But we are both well aware of cases where a later, *different*
copyright holder makes an already-distributed work non-free by taking
advantage of unclear or contradictory terms in that work's copyright
status.
> We're not talking about a situation where the whole thing might be a
> deliberate trap. If someone like IBM or Oracle came out with a `public
> domain' statement we should be very suspicious - but that's not (ever)
> what we're dealing with.
The copyright holder can change. If Oracle or IBM acquire copyright in
the work, does that count as “coming out with” a public domain
statement? I'd say that question doesn't much matter.
What does matter in that case is that the work would simultaneously have
a past assertion of public domain status, and also lack a clear grant of
license.
That's a situation to avoid, and we can't avoid the future copyright
acquisition; we can only avoid accepting that work without clear grant
of copyright license in the first place.
> > [the risk is unacceptable] especially because it's quite easy for
> > the copyright holder to correctly apply a known simple free-software
> > license that grants all the relevant permissions.
>
> I don't see how it allegedly being `easy' to fix increases the risk to
> Debian and our users and downstreams.
The risk isn't increased, it stays the same. The risk becomes less
acceptable, because it's quite easy to avoid: just apply a
known-enforcible widely-understood free software license.
--
\ “Anyone who puts a small gloss on [a] fundamental technology, |
`\ calls it proprietary, and then tries to keep others from |
_o__) building on it, is a thief.” —Tim O'Reilly, 2000-01-25 |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85mw8zy5a9@benfinney.id.au
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Charles Plessy wrote: > Hello Florent, > > you can decouple the two issues: > > - The package is totally redistributable in Debian as it is, you do >not need to relicense the files to update to the new upstream release. > > - You can work on the resolving the apparent contradiction at the >pace you want, you can even consider it a wishlist, “patch welcome” >issue only. Sounds like reasonable advice. I followed that, thank you. > Have a nice week-end, Same to you, bye -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87bnpapdh4@frougon.crabdance.com
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Hi, Ben Finney wrote: > I've been a primary proponent of that point of view, and I think it's > probably correct. But I wouldn't claim it's *established*; no qualified > legal expert has said anything so definite here, I believe. OK, I see. [...] > I wouldn't want to assert whether a judge might consider some work too > trivial to be covered by copyright. If you think it's an easy task, it's > certainly safer to replace them if you want to relicense. Sure. > But there are also established examples of successfully relicensing > works without getting explicit permission from every copyright holder of > every portion of the work. So that's an option to explore also. That's, uh... interesting. What were the conditions exactly? Is it that some contributors could not be reached and it was assumed they wouldn't disagree? Or maybe the copyright was assigned in some vague way such as "the *** team" or "the participants to the *** mailing-list"?.. Thanks to all four for your answers, have a nice weekend! -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/877fzypcpn@frougon.crabdance.com
Where to put a package to is under public domain?
Hi. I am packaging a new library (cgraph) and searching the README file I found this: -*- The Cgraph Library source code, examples, and documentation are in the public domain. Utilities included in the utils* directories are not ours, and under the distribution terms specified therein. -*- Can I put this library in main, since it it under public domain? The utilities that the file refers, are to NeXT, so they are not going in the binary distribution of the package, but what about the source? Should I remove them from the source file as well? In case not, this is an extract of the README from the utils: -*- Distribution: open must only be distributed free of charges. (for other ways of distribution you have to get my written consent) You are only allowed to distribute unmodified copies of this software. You may distribute modified copies if you unmistakably mark them as such. You are only allowed to distribute this software in a bundle (compressed tar archive or any other archiving/compressing method with similar purpose) including all files that are part of this software package (open.m open.h open.1 open.info appopen.1 Makefile Makefile.postamble Makefile.preamble PB.project) -*- I don't think they can go in main, but in my opinion they go to /dev/null, because they are not needed. I intent to make available ASAP an unofficial .deb package, but in the meanwhile you can check it out on http://totoro.berkeley.edu/software/A_Cgraph.html -- Pedro Guerreiro (aka digito)([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Diplomacy: the art of letting someone have your own way.
RE: Is this Public Domain? And is it DFSG-free?
The author needs to get the statement from Scandia cleared up. If it truly is public domain w/ no strings attached, that is DFSG free. However, the way the document reads it states the author may not have the right to his own code.
Re: Is this Public Domain? And is it DFSG-free?
Scripsit Pontus Lidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm looking at a network analysis tool called 'pchar', which has the > following license: > > This work was first produced by an employee of Sandia National > Laboratories under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy. > Sandia National Laboratories dedicates whatever right, title or > interest it may have in this software to the public. Although no > license from Sandia is needed to copy and use this software, copying > and using the software might infringe the rights of others. This > software is provided as-is. SANDIA DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. > > What bothers me is the sentence "Although no license from Sandia is needed > to copy and use this software, copying and using the software might > infringe the rights of others". The author himself doesn't see any > problems, as he has placed pchar in the public domain, which is less > restrictive than, e.g., GPL. > > As I understand it, the author (or Sandia, depending on which kind of > agreement he has with them) still retains copyright to the software even > though he released it to the public domain. Is this correct? The situation seems pretty clear to me. As employer of the author, Sandia owned the copyright to what he wrote, but not wanting to exploit these rights in any way, they decided to give those rights to the public; this means that nobody now owns those rights, and the contribution is effectively free of copyright. So no, neither the author nor Sandia retains copyright to the software. However, as Sandia does not wish to be bothered in any way about this software, they added a clause that frees them from any claim that they may have been giving away rights they did not own: just in case the software would contain anything on which somebody else has copyright, Sandia would leave those intact (as obviously they must). The language is that of pure prudence; they clearly did not want to verify whether their employee had maybe used material copyrighted by others. Which means they leave the burden of verification to whoever wants to further distribute the software. The fact that the author himself has placed pchar in the public domain seems to indicate that he does not think to be violating anybody else's copyright. To be on the safe side, it would do no harm to ask him explicitly (if he can be located), and of course to check for any copyright notices in the code. Supposing no rights turn up this way, one may claim having done what is reasonable to detect any dormant rights, and henceforth consider the software as being entirely in the public domain. For future redistributors it might be kind to include a note indicating the evidence gathered for the non-copyrighted status, so that the effort need not be duplicated later. > To sum it up: > > 1) Is the license DFSG-free as it stands? Non-copyrighted (public domain) material cannot have (and does not need) a licence. > 2) Can the author re-distribute his software under, e.g., the BSD license >now, despite having released it with the above license? No. The copyrights having been given away (or annihilated), they cannot be reclaimed by the author or anybody else. It also means anybody can reuse any material in any way they like and claim to have unshared copyrights to the resulting work (this is where GPL-ed work differs most notably from work in the public domain); strictly speaking this applies only to the parts that are (in the terms of US law) "original works of authorship" produced by that person. Doing so would not however affect the original version in any way. Marc van Leeuwen Universite de Poitiers http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/ A ''useful article'' is a vessel hull, including a plug or mold, which in normal use has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article which normally is part of a useful article shall be deemed to be a useful article. U.S. Code Title 17 [Copyrights] Chapter 13 [Protection of original designs] Section 1301. [Designs protected] (b) [Definitions] (2). See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1301.html> and http://uscode.house.gov/DOWNLOAD/17C13.DOC>
Re: Is this Public Domain? And is it DFSG-free?
> > To sum it up: > > > > 1) Is the license DFSG-free as it stands? > > Non-copyrighted (public domain) material cannot have (and does not need) a > licence. > > > 2) Can the author re-distribute his software under, e.g., the BSD license > >now, despite having released it with the above license? > > No. The copyrights having been given away (or annihilated), they cannot be > reclaimed by the author or anybody else. It also means anybody can reuse any > material in any way they like and claim to have unshared copyrights to the > resulting work (this is where GPL-ed work differs most notably from work in > the public domain); strictly speaking this applies only to the parts that are > (in the terms of US law) "original works of authorship" produced by that > person. Doing so would not however affect the original version in any way. Thanks for a very clear explanation. I do indeed have a statement from the author saying that he wrote it all, except for one file which is covered by the BSD license. I now feel I can safely go ahead and try to make a package of it. -- Pontus Lidman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Software Engineer No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up. Scene: www.dc-s.com | MUD: tyme.envy.com 6969 | irc: irc.quakenet.eu.org
Re: "placed into public domain" software from droit d'auteur developers
Florian Weimer writes: > If someone claims that he has placed his software into public domain, > and the person is subject to the jurisdiction of one of the droit > d'auteur countries (Germany for example[1]), shall we interpret this > claim as null and void, or as the grant of very broad usage rights to > the general public? There are similar problems with copyright law in the US, which has no explicit way to waive copyright. The way I personally would interpret this is as an unlimited, irrevocable grant of all transferable rights. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "placed into public domain" software from droit d'auteur developers
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Florian Weimer wrote: > If someone claims that he has placed his software into public > domain, and the person is subject to the jurisdiction of one of the > droit d'auteur countries (Germany for example[1]), shall we > interpret this claim as null and void, or as the grant of very broad > usage rights to the general public? I would suggest that we treat it as undefined and get clarification from the author if that is in fact possible. A statement to the effect that they license the work under MIT in any jurisdiction where their dedication to the public domain is uneffective should be ideal and sufficient.. Don Armstrong -- "There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their REAL earnings to the IRS." -- The B.O.F.H.. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: "placed into public domain" software from droit d'auteur developers
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If someone claims that he has placed his software into public domain, > and the person is subject to the jurisdiction of one of the droit > d'auteur countries (Germany for example[1]), shall we interpret this > claim as null and void, or as the grant of very broad usage rights to > the general public? > > [1] Over here, you can't give up some of your rights as an author, > much like you can't sell yourself into slavery. I would cautiously interpret it as the latter and, if possible, contact the author for a clarification. Something like the MIT/X11 license with the copyright notice and the condition removed should achieve the desired effect. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "placed into public domain" software from droit d'auteur developers
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:33:38PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: Florian> If someone claims that he has placed his software into public domain, Florian> and the person is subject to the jurisdiction of one of the droit Florian> d'auteur countries (Germany for example[1]), shall we interpret this Florian> claim as null and void, or as the grant of very broad usage rights to Florian> the general public? Florian> Florian> [1] Over here, you can't give up some of your rights as an author, Florian> much like you can't sell yourself into slavery. Florian> I concur with the other posters: I would regard it as a grant of broad usage rights, and would suggest MIT-style licensing instead to make things clearer. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OT: extracting a public-domain part from an anthology
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Most ancient documents exist in many different versions. There is > significant work involved in putting together a particular text. I > would guess that this work is covered by copyright, so you can't just > take the text from a recent and expensive academic edition and put it > on the web. This is true; however, for a great many works, especially the most common, there are good 19th century critical texts. For texts which date before the age of printing, the usual facts are that there are many variants as you state. However, note that there is a contradiction between "our reconstructed text is a new work" and "our reconstructed text is what we believe the urtext looked like". In practice, things are terribly confusing. Certainly the critical apparatus (which tells you which variants come from which sources) is copyrightable. But the text itself--that's just never really been tested. For texts which date *after* the advent of printing, variant editions are quite rare, and there is really no such thing as a "critical text"--every text is really pretty identical. (However, it is occasionally done to "update" the punctuation, spelling [or worse, the grammar] of an old text, which certainly is copyrightable.) > Even if the compiling author is claiming to follow a particular > edition that is out of copyright, I would guess that the compiling > author still gets a new copyright; if a book is old enough to be out > of copyright, obtaining a copy of it is a non-trivial task[*]. This is not true. If his claim is to follow a particular edition, then he is disclaiming copyright. He may have a compilation copyright--but that's on the assemblage, and *NOT* on the parts. It's not too tough to find old copies of books that are in the public domain. For ancient texts, it happens that a great many of the Harvard Loeb editions, and the Oxford Classical Texts editions, are out of copyright, for example. > Small differences may be introduced into the anthology, by accident > or deliberately, and these differences would be sufficient to prove > that you took your text from the anthology rather than from the > original edition. Sure, but that's not illegal. If someone reprints an out-of-copyright text, with no copyrightable creative addition, then you can take your text from there. If they do make additions, and you remove them, then that's fine too. If they make *accidental* additions, I don't think that's anything like a basis for them to claim copyright. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: extracting a public-domain part from an anthology
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [*] I once wanted a reliable text of some Edgar Allan Poe. There were > versions all over the web, of course, but they were all slightly > different. I made a list of the differences and consulted a microfilm > copy of an original edition in Cambridge university library to resolve > them. I invested several hours work into that exercise, so maybe I > could, as a sort of amateur textual critic, claim copyright in the > final result. This is incorrect. Whether you can claim copyright has nothing to do with how much effort went into the process. What you did was prepare an accurate electronic text of that microfilm, and since the microfilm was not copyrighted, and your process was mechanical--you could have just typed it directly--you didn't do anything to which copyright can attach. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: extracting a public-domain part from an anthology
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I can create derivative works from Homer's _Illiad_ even though the >> copy I'm basing it on is in the Norton Anthology of Literature. > > Most ancient documents exist in many different versions. There is >significant work involved in putting together a particular text. I would >guess that this work is covered by copyright, so you can't just take the >text from a recent and expensive academic edition and put it on the web. Of course, I pick a terrible example of a non-copyrighted work. s/Homer's _Illiad_/Dicken's _A Christmas Carol_/. --Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: extracting a public-domain part from an anthology
> For texts which date *after* the advent of printing, variant editions > are quite rare, and there is really no such thing as a "critical > text"--every text is really pretty identical. (However, it is > occasionally done to "update" the punctuation, spelling [or worse, the > grammar] of an old text, which certainly is copyrightable.) The first printed books started to appear in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. And yet, all the way up to the end of the eighteenth century, we find many variations of the classics. This comes from two main sources: authors relied on others to do printing. Often, the printers would make mistakes and in-house style and shortcuts were often applied even at the highest quality printers. This is further complicated by original undated manuscripts: was the manuscript a draft? was it modified after the final edition? Furthermore, authors often revised their work and would print a new additional versions later in life: just consider Pope's _Essay on Man_. Many of the documents undated and determining the author's final intentions is non-trivial. Consider William Blake: he was incredibly meticulous in both his writing and engraving and many variations of his work abound. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Header fields and followup address (was: Public Domain for Germans)
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > PS: What's wrong with using a Mail-Followup-To: header? (That's “header field”. Remember, folks: an email message has, as specified in RFC 2822, exactly *one* header, consisting of multiple fields.) I can see two reasons: It's non-standard. It is not one of the standard header fields, so its name should start with ‘X-’, and its implementation is user-defined in the absense of a standard. The poorly-written document proposing it http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt> failed to pass, and expired in 1998, so it's unlikely it will ever *be* standard. It's essentially obsolete, at least for the purpose of mailing lists, since RFC 2369 fields that allow the “reply to list” function are deployed in essentially every mailing list manager. Let's agitate to fix the “reply to list” functionality where we find it lacking (I'm looking at you, Thunderbird) before we agitate for non-standard field implementations. -- \ “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the | `\ value of nothing.” —Oscar Wilde | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to put a package to is under public domain?
On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 12:23:42AM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote: > Hi. > > I am packaging a new library (cgraph) and searching the README file I found > this: > > -*- > The Cgraph Library source code, examples, and documentation are in the public > domain. Utilities included in the utils* directories are not ours, and under > the distribution terms specified therein. > -*- Public Domain while generally non-existant for 70 years or so after the publication date if you wanna get real technical about it (US law, EU too?) is going to be treated in court as a non-exclusive grant of license to use, modify, distribute, and pretty much anything else you want with the code. It's suitable for main and is in fact the most restriction free license there is, bar none. Of course it's 100% exploitable, but so's the X license. => > -*- > Distribution: > > open must only be distributed free of charges. (for other ways of > distribution you have to get my written consent) You are only allowed to > distribute unmodified copies of this software. You may distribute modified > copies if you unmistakably mark them as such. You are only allowed to > distribute this software in a bundle (compressed tar archive or any other > archiving/compressing method with similar purpose) including all files that > are part of this software package (open.m open.h open.1 open.info appopen.1 > Makefile Makefile.postamble Makefile.preamble PB.project) > -*- > > I don't think they can go in main, but in my opinion they go to /dev/null, > because they are not needed. While slightly obnoxious, I am uncertain this is non-free. You have to distribute the author's package if you distribute anything, unless it's clearly marked as such. The less obnoxious but more ambiguous issue is the "free of charges" thing. It's pretty clear to me that the intent is that you can't charge just for open, that not that you can't charge for say a cdrom which just happens to contain open among other things. However this is ambiguous and could be argued non-free on those grounds. Clarification of these points would be nice and the group consensus may be that it is needed before this can be considered free. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - How many months are we going to be behind them [Redhat] with a glibc release?" -- Jim Pick, 8 months before Debian 2.0 is finally released pgpvO2vKRGrd2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Hi, there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open Use Logo may be subjected to the GFDL. The German Wikipedia does not accept any content not licensed as public domain or GFDL (e. g. no "fair use" because this is an American law only). > This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the > Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project As far as I understand this sentence, the logo may not be used for other things and is not "free" according to the GFDL. The "possible copyright violation notice", however, was removed by the uploader today.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild_Diskussion:Debian_logo.png (Although this page is in German, you may add English comments to it). GFDL and Debian Logo X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open Use Logo <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Debian_logo.png> may be subjected to the GFDL. The German Wikipedia does not accept any content not licensed as public domain or GFDL (e. g. no "fair use" because this is an American law only). > This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the > Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project As far as I understand this sentence, the logo may not be used for other things and is not "free" according to the GFDL. The "possible copyright violation notice", however, was removed by the uploader today. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild_Diskussion:Debian_logo.png (Although this page is in German, you may add English comments to it). Hendrik
