Re: what license is ?
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 14:53, Glenn Maynard wrote: Read it as as an additional restriction, all additional materials mentioning ... It's still a restriction, and a cumbersome one. I don't recall what makes advertising clauses DFSG-free. Unenforcability? It doesn't violate DFSG 9, because it's not making any claims on the other software. The advertising clause kicks in whether you distribute the software by itself, on a compilation CD, or whatever. Now, the advertising clause is GPL-incompatible, which is what I suspect you're thinking of with the additional restriction stuff. But lots of free licenses are GPL-incompatible.
Re: what license is ?
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:11:42PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: I don't recall what makes advertising clauses DFSG-free. Unenforcability? It doesn't violate DFSG 9, because it's not making any claims on the other software. The advertising clause kicks in whether you distribute the software by itself, on a compilation CD, or whatever. Now, the advertising clause is GPL-incompatible, which is what I suspect you're thinking of with the additional restriction stuff. But lots of free licenses are GPL-incompatible. Well, if it was enforcable, it'd be a restriction on distribution: #1. I seem to recall people saying that this wasn't a problem since it's not within the bounds of copyright, and unenforcable, and could be ignored for determining DFSG-freeness. (I'm not sure that ignoring a license restriction because it's theretically not enforcable is a good *general* rule, but it seems reasonable enough here.) But I havn't followed a full discussion on this, so I don't know for sure. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: what license is ?
OK, I was up _way_ too late... As far as the Sun one, I meant that I didn't see what was wrong with the additional paragraph Sun added... *normally* I'm more lucid that that, but those must of been a particularly bad 17 minutes. I apologize for that, and promise to get more sleep before trying to read licenses again. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: what license is ?
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 08:20, Santiago Vila wrote: How does it not violate DFSG 9? How it does? this software != other software If I, for example, were to write an ad for the software, I'd have to include that notice in my software. [ Consider I could write a game that has the purpose and effect of advertising that package. ] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: what license is ?
On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote: This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...] It does not prevent the program from being DFSG-free, [...] How does it not violate DFSG 9? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: what license is ?
On 26 Sep 2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote: This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...] It does not prevent the program from being DFSG-free, [...] How does it not violate DFSG 9? How it does? this software != other software
Re: what license is ?
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:07:14AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote: This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...] It does not prevent the program from being DFSG-free, [...] How does it not violate DFSG 9? i think that : The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. is different from : All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by Niels Provos. because it doesn't place restriction on the software, but it just say: Hey if you try to sell/send CD's or brochures in which you mention libevent (also stegdetect has the same license), you have to esplicitally say that that sw was made by Niels Provos i don't think this can be view as a restriction to other sw; it's just a banner. i hope to have write on a clear english, if not forgive me, i'm no native English speaker. Regards Samuele -- Samuele Giovanni Tonon [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxasylum.net/~samu/ Acid -- better living through chemistry. Timothy Leary
Re: what license is ?
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 02:33:39PM +0200, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote: i think that : The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. is different from : All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by Niels Provos. because it doesn't place restriction on the software, but it just say: Hey if you try to sell/send CD's or brochures in which you mention libevent (also stegdetect has the same license), you have to esplicitally say that that sw was made by Niels Provos Read it as as an additional restriction, all additional materials mentioning ... It's still a restriction, and a cumbersome one. I don't recall what makes advertising clauses DFSG-free. Unenforcability? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: what license is ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26 Sep 2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote: This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...] It does not prevent the program from being DFSG-free, [...] How does it not violate DFSG 9? You are on one today, aren't you? First, the Sun codicil to the OpenSSL license (4-clause BSD warmed over) is okay, but the OpenSSL/4-clause BSD/libevent license isn't?! My question is how can the Sun codicil be okay when it states the following? * * The Contribution is licensed pursuant to the OpenSSL open source * license provided above. * Either the 4-clause BSDL violates DFSG 9 or it doesn't. However, it really doesn't matter, as DFSG 10 overrides IMHO (yeah, yeah, Mr. Bushnell, we've been over whether DFSG 10 overrides the rest before, and this isn't the time and place for it), and DFSG 10 specifically mentions the [4-clause] BSD license as free (note that in the metadata of the DFSG, the DFSG predates UCB's modification, so the 3-clause BSDL didn't exist as such then, so BSD means 4-clause BSD). My hat is off to you: rarely has someone so successfully argued both sides of an issue in 17 minutes flat. - -- The early worm gets the bird. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE9k3yT+ZSKG3nWr3ARAoIHAJ0XvF12Zaq5feJuMjzwZbhwjsGM6ACdGl3a pQb+aua20CdRWphKaoeG6jE= =2GMG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
what license is ?
hi, i'm making the package of a library (libevent) which has this license this looks like a derived form of BSD license anyway i don't know if i can put it under bsd license or i have to cut'n paste the license inside the copyright file (anyway it looks debian compatible) . the only difference seem to be point 3 beetween this and BSD Lic. What do you suggest ? /* * Copyright 2000-2002 Niels Provos [EMAIL PROTECTED] * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by Niels Provos. * 4. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products *derived from this software without specific prior written permission. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES * OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. * IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, * INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT * NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, * DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY * THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF * THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. */ pls cc me because i'm not subscribed to debian-legal. thanks Samuele -- Samuele Giovanni Tonon [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxasylum.net/~samu/ Acid -- better living through chemistry. Timothy Leary
Re: what license is ?
Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote: i'm making the package of a library (libevent) which has this license this looks like a derived form of BSD license anyway i don't know if i can put it under bsd license or i have to cut'n paste the license inside the copyright file (anyway it looks debian compatible) . the only difference seem to be point 3 beetween this and BSD Lic. What do you suggest ? As I understand it, /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD should only be referenced when the program is (c) The Regents of the University of California. Fortunately this type of licenses are small enough that including it in the copyright file should not be a problem. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by Niels Provos. This is the (in)famous advertising clause. You should probably ask the author to remove it. It does not prevent the program from being DFSG-free, but it creates a lot of problems in the long run.
Re: what license is ?
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:53:20AM +0200, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote: hi, i'm making the package of a library (libevent) which has this license this looks like a derived form of BSD license anyway i don't know if i can put it under bsd license or i have to cut'n paste the license inside the copyright file (anyway it looks debian compatible) . the only difference seem to be point 3 beetween this and BSD Lic. What do you suggest ? Dude, I've ITPed [0] that, and have a copy of that package on my hard disk. I plan on tweaking fragroute before uploading the whole set. Simon [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=155447repeatmerged=yes
