Bug#517790: mydns -- DNS server using MySQL or PostgreSQL for data storage

[MJ Ray]

It looks like this package would be based on MyDNS-ng, rather than
MyDNS.  That is a good thing.

Would it be based on the old packaging removed after
http://bugs.debian.org/382656 ?

I have an only-updated git tree of that which builds 1.2.8.27
with lots of lintian warnings that should be fixed before upload.
I will clone it to collab-maint if you would like it.

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#460591: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

[MJ Ray]

Giancarlo Niccolai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
> MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > In general, I'm disappointed to see this licence proliferation.
> I am too.
> 
> There isn't any single open source mainstream programming language or
> even compiler I know, including clisp, gcc, PHP, python, swi-prolog,
> ruby, harbour and xharbour (little known clipper clones OS projects I
> worked in),  that isn't distributed under either a propetary
> non-reapplicable license or under a commonly known license with
> exceptions. IMHO, exceptions are much worse than license
> proliferation, as they modify a "lawfully certified" text and
> unbalance it, and their effect isn't always fully understandable by
> the time the exceptions are written.

I disagree.  Furthermore, there's nothing preventing 'lawful
certification' of a licence with the exceptions.  Instead here, if anyone
wants to obtain such certification of Falcon PL, they've got to pay for
a whole new licence to be examined, rather than an increment.

I'm not convinced that the problem being guarded against here is as
big an interference as it's being made out to be.  It seems somewhat
orthogonal to the other licence terms, if done right.

[...]
> Nevertheless, you'll admit that starting a review with such a sentence
> does not suggest a constructive critic attitude towards the object of
> the review...

It wasn't /written/ at the start of the review, if that helps.  Drafting
is a wonderful process, allowing bits of text to be added at the start
after one has written the body.  If the licence had actually brought
some new benefits, instead of drawbacks, I might not be so unhappy that
it's a new one.

[...]
> > Claiming any copyright over Scripts gives me the heebie-jeebies.
> > More importantly, that seems like an obvious failure of DFSG 9 by
> > contaminating other software.
> To me too.
> 
> In fact, the FPLL doesn't claim any copyright on scripts. It just
> *defines* them to state they are *free* from possible copyright claims
> ( ... each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
> non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license
> to reproduce, prepare ...)

Well, to be *able* to give such a grant and for that to be meaningful
in any way, surely the FPL is asserting it has an applicable copyright
interest on the Scripts?  If it wasn't claiming any copyright, its
language about Scripts would be more like the GPL's description that
running the Program needs no permission from the copyright holder.

Did I miss a bit where the licence disclaims copyright interest in the
Scripts?

Anyway, this is the show-stopper.  Contaminates other software.  DFSG 9.
It's the parts of FPL sections 1, 2 and 5 about Scripts.  Clear enough?

[...]
> More; Apache2 license states the sentence "including but not limited
> to...". In legalese, this means "hey, and also everything else, if we
> forgot to say it here". Following your reasoning, this would be quite
> a massive breaking of DFSG, but it is not.

No, the Apache 2 licence does not talk about things which are not part
of that software.

[...4d...]
> > A new obnoxious advertising clause.  Probably won't break DFSG, but
> > I don't like it for practical reasons.
> Which practical reason?

  "When people put many such programs together in an operating system,
  the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required
  75 different sentences, each one naming a different author or group
  of authors. To advertise that, you would need a full-page ad."

  "This might seem like extrapolation ad absurdum, but it is actual
  fact. NetBSD comes with a long list of different sentences, required
  by the various licenses for parts of the system. In a 1997 version of
  NetBSD, I counted 75 of these sentences. I would not be surprised if
  the list has grown by now."

Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

[...]
> > Other than that, it differs from Apache 2.0 in missing the How to
> > Apply appendix, which isn't serious, but seems a bit
> > user-unfriendly.
> There is a commentary, which I posted here, that has the same aims of
> the "How to apply" appendix, and hopefully clarifies the license
> without introducing further ambiguities or hiding clauses.

I didn't see it in the web page http://www.falconpl.org/?page_id=license
but that site has poor accessibility anyway.  http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG1

> Notice that I will double-license Falcon itself as GPL/FPLL, [...]

Great.  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]

Bug#460591: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

[MJ Ray]

Giancarlo Niccolai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anyway, this is the show-stopper.  Contaminates other software.  DFSG 9.
> > It's the parts of FPL sections 1, 2 and 5 about Scripts.  Clear enough?
> >   
> Yes, your position is now clear, thanks.
> 
> Yet, I can't see why you say it contaminates more software. The license
> just applies to software that uses Falcon; scripts (falcon scripts) do
> it and embedding applications do it; of course, also derivative work do
> it. I can't see why requiring for them to be closed source and putting a
> notice or open source with FPLL or with another compatible open source
> license (as GPL or LGPL) would be more infringing than i.e. GPL itself.

The licence for Falcon (this software) is effectively asserting that it
can restrict the scripts (which is some other software).  I can't see
why you think that doesn't contaminate other software, the scripts.

To be free software, the licence for Falcon must not apply to software
that uses Falcon *except* when it is embedded into or extending Falcon
in certain ways.  I'm not even sure that Falcon's licence *can* restrict
the scripts it loads, because:-

  "The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free
  software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit
  what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data
  (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements
  about licensing that data to anyone."

Source: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

So, the GPL doesn't apply to scripts of a GPL'd interpreter, so FPLL is
different in this way.

> > [...4d...]
> >>> A new obnoxious advertising clause.  Probably won't break DFSG, but
> >>> I don't like it for practical reasons.
> >>>   
[...]
> Also, the "advertisement" is part of well known and accepted licenses,
[...]

Sure.  As I wrote: it probably won't break DFSG but is obnoxious to many.

> Finally, if your thing is open source you don't need to put any notice
> anywhere [...]

Well, that's better than many.  Thanks!

> > [...]
> > I didn't see it in the web page http://www.falconpl.org/?page_id=license
> > but that site has poor accessibility anyway.  http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG1
> >   
> That's because I gave you the direct link to the raw text of the
> license. They are always stuck together in distro files and on the pages
> from which the license is accessible. Also, I posted the link to the
> commentary here.

I suggest linking the FAQ from the Licence and the reverse.

[...]
> Thanks for the comments on the site; pitifully, we are short on hands,
> and what we have now is all that we can afford in term of effort. A
> person with your expertise would surely help.

Sorry.  Most of my cooperatives are also short on hands and this has a
pretty tenuous link to my work (I use debian for work and strongly support
free software, so encouraging 100% free software for debian has eventual
benefits) so I can't really spend more time, unless the link becomes more
direct, like one of my cooperatives is commissioned to write a study or
bugfix a website or something.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#334489: Please comment on IBPP licensing

[MJ Ray]

Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for comments on:
> * 0. Definitions
> 
>   o 0.1. IBPP
> 'IBPP' is primarily a set of programming interfaces,
> initially written in the C++ language, which makes it easier to develop
> any other programming work which need to communicate and work with
> Firebird, a SQL-based database engine and server, and possibly other
> similar engines and servers. Further in this document we also name
> 'IBPP' the source code itself which implements those interfaces and any
> associated files whatever their nature.
> 
>   o 0.2. TIP
> 'TIP' is the company T.I.P. Group S.A., a legal entity,
> registered in the Kingdom of Belgium under the enterprise identification
> number 0.429.942.927. Contact information: http://www.tipgroup.com.

Most of the two above should be in README and AUTHORS, in my opinion.

>   o 0.3. Authors
> 'Authors' is the college of private persons or legal
> entities, including TIP, who at least once contributed to IBPP.

College? What law is this drafted for?

> * 1. Copyrights
> 
>   The very initial version of IBPP (0.9) was released in the year
> 2000 by TIP. Through this initial contribution, TIP holds a Copyright
> (c) 2000 on that original version of IBPP.
> 
>   In addition, each and every private person or legal entity,
> including TIP, who since contributed or contribute to IBPP hold a shared
> Copyright (c)  with TIP on that portion of code
> they contribute, wether the contribution is made by modification or
> addition to the source code or associated files.

Spelling error s/wether/whether/ already. First of many.

> * 2. Rights
> 
>   Without damage of the duties exposed at article 3., the Authors

Confusing wording: lawyerbomb?

> hereby grant the following permissions, free of charge, to any private
> person or legal entity (hereafter "You"):

Permission not granted to public legal entities (UK = plcs, royal charter
corporations IIRC).  Breaks DFSG 5 (No Discrimination Against Persons) or
6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour).

>   o 2.1. Right to Use
> To use (edit when required, compile and link) the IBPP
> source code as part of a larger programming work which effectively makes
> use of some or all of the functionnalities offered by IBPP.

Restriction on use: we might not agree that something is effectively
making use. Lawyerbomb, possibly breaking DFSG 3 (Derived Works).

>   o 2.2. Right to Modify
> To develop modifications or additions which enhance or fix IBPP.

Restriction on modification: we might not agree that something is an
enhancement. Lawyerbomb, possibly breaking DFSG 3 (Derived Works).

>   o 2.3. Right to Publish
> To publish the IBPP source code along with your own source
> code which uses it.

No permission to copy alone? Might not be free software at all
(doesn't give freedom 2) but can be made so trivially.

> * 3. Duties
> 
>   o 3.1. Duty to give modifications back to IBPP Authors
> Any modification or addition done to IBPP will be submitted
> to the Authors, so that those modifications or additions can be
> reviewed, possibly modified or fixed, and eventually merged in a new
> version of IBPP, if the modification is found by the Authors to be of
> interest to the IBPP users community.

Forced donation upstream of work. I regard this as a payment or
royalty on derived works, breaking DFSG 1 (Free Redistribution).
I know others disagree, but I don't understand their reasoning.

>   o 3.2. Duty to play by the rules when publishing the IBPP
> source code
> When You publish the IBPP source code with your own source
> code which uses it, You must also publish this license.txt file and You
> must not remove any of the licensing and copyright texts located near
> the beginning of the IBPP source code files.

No-op in many (all?) copyright laws.

>   o 3.3. Duty to free IBPP Authors from any responsability
> When You use IBPP in your programming works, You implicitely
> agree to free the Authors from any and all responsability. You fully
> endorse IBPP and assume all consequences of using it in your programming
> works. This goes to the extent that, should the IBPP code be found to
> infringe on the copyright or patent of any third-party entity, you
> assume the entire responsability regarding your own programming works
> which use IBPP. You always a least have the final solution not to use
> IBPP anymore in your programming works.

Not sure about the accuracy of this claim of "the final solution".

> * 4. New versions of this License
> 
>   TIP is the only entity who can publish new versions of this
> license and attach such new license versions to any future version of
> IBPP. Though if doing so, TIP cannot remove any right previously granted

Confusing first sentence: does future version include derive

Bug#362652: Apache license 1.1 for non-Apache software

[MJ Ray]

Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).

[2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like.
I think your ITP License line is incorrect.

> I read debian-legal archives to have information about 
> Apache License version 1.1. Situation seems confuse on the first
> thread [3]. This thread [4] explains there is no problem for
> Apache software under Apache License.

[3] concerns GPL-compatibility. Are you combining with GPL work?

> Note that I am intent to call my Debian package 'sork-forwards-h3'
> and with very few patches for upstream version. Note also there are
> already packages with this license in "main" : sork-passwd-h3,
> ingo1, jython, et cetera.

Have the Horde Project given written permission for that? It would
help avoid the uncertainty.

> Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?

Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be.

> [1] : http://bugs.debian.org/362652
> [2] : http://cvs.horde.org/co.php?r=1.1.2.2&f=forwards%2FLICENSE&p=1
> [3] : http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/06/msg00103.html
> [4] : http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00205.html

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]

Bug#524835: ITP: thaifonts-siampradesh -- Thai TrueType fonts derived from DIP/SIPA contested fonts

[MJ Ray]

Theppitak Karoonboonyanan  wrote:
> FYI, I once posted to consult with debian-legal last year [1],
> but have got no answer so far. So, I decide to prepare the
> pacakge for non-free.
>   [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/07/msg8.html

I suspect I didn't reply because I was avoiding the OFL-fu and didn't
understand editing it could possibly change the postcard clause.

> MJ Ray wrote:
> > While not a DFSG problem, I think it's misleading to call this
> > cooperative font creation when the sale restriction limits economic
> > participation and the notification requirement means it is not
> > autonomous.  Compare http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html
>
> Well, it's the same restriction as found in DejaVu font, anyway:

Quite possibly. It's trivial to avoid (so not a DFSG problem) but
still a restriction on economic participation by font developers, so
discourages cooperative font creation.

[...]
> >> WILL WORK AS EXPECTED OR WILL BE DEVELOPED FURTHUR IN ANY SPECIFIC WAY.  
> >> THERE
> >> IS NO OFFER OR GUARANTEE OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
> >
> > Spelling error: further not furthur.
>
> Can I edit the license terms/disclaimers? Is it legal to do so?

Not really.  One should ask the licensor to fix it.  I pointed it out
because unfixed spelling errors are another hint that the licence
hasn't been reviewed properly yet.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#535830: ITP: php-recaptcha -- reCAPTCHA is a free CAPTCHA service

[MJ Ray]

"Angel Abad \(Ikusnet SLL\)"  wrote:
> [...] No computer program can read
> distorted text as well as humans can, so bots cannot navigate sites
> protected by CAPTCHAs.

This sentence is false.  It depends on the ability of the humans.
Also, many other sorts of CAPTCHAs exist besides distorted text
eyetests.

> This package contains the php recaptcha library.

Sadly, reCAPTCHA is not a CAPTCHA: it cannot distinguish between
humans with audio-visual impairments and computers.  As usually
implemented, it insults humans with audio-visual impairments by
calling them inhuman.

The package description should make clear the difference between
reCAPTCHA and a true CAPTCHA.

Wouldn't someone rather package an anti-spam tool instead?  Packages
for blogspam.net libraries would be much more useful.

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#496659: Genicorp General Public Licence

[MJ Ray]

Maximilian Gaß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm currently packaging libopenoffice-oodoc-perl and stumbled upon its
> license:
>
> > This software is free software. It is subject to the terms and
> > conditions of both
> > 
> > - the GNU Lesser General Public Licence, version 2.1, of the
> > Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org);

This licence is known to be fine for main, but contains the key phrase
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein" in section 10.  So, I think
that if the other licence contains any restrictions to copying not
already in LGPL-2.1 then we can't satisfy both licences at the same
time and so have no permission to copy it.

> > - the Licence Publique Generale Genicorp, version 1.0 (see below,
> > English translation by Graeme A. Hunter).
> >  
> > -
> > Genicorp General Public Licence (version 1.0)
> > -
> >  
> >  The company GENICORP S.A., of 156 boulevard Haussmann, Paris, 
> > France
> >  ("GENICORP")
> >  
> >  offers a set of software components ("the software") for use free 
> > of
> >  charge, and which is designed to aid development of certain
> >  information handling applications, under the following conditions:
> >  
> >  I - The software provided is not a finished industrial product and
> >  cannot be accompanied by any kind of functional guarantee. It must
> >  only be considered a model or aid for the creation of other
> >  software. It is only designed to be used by experienced programmers
> >  who must be sure it is appropriate for the required use.
> >  
> >  GENICORP hopes this software will prove useful but does not
> >  guarantee that it will meet any of your needs and accepts no
> >  responsibility whatsoever for any direct or indirect consequences
> >  arising from its use.

These look like statements of fact and I think they're OK.

> >  II - The software can be freely copied and passed to third parties
> >  on condition that they accept the terms of this user licence which
> >  should always accompany the software unchanged.

So it requires acceptance of Genicorp GPL, which is a restriction not
present in LGPL-2.1 as far as I saw, so we can't satisfy both
licences, so we have no permission.

> >  III - The software can be freely modified. Modified versions can be
> >  distributed free or otherwise under the following conditions:
> >  
> >  - A comment at the top of each modified module must explicitly
> >  mention the name of the original module (name, date, version,
> >  GENICORP's name) as well as the details of the author of the
> >  modifications.
> >  - The original version and this user licence must be made
> >  available to the recipient of the modified version.

The first of these is in LGPL-2.1 section 2, so is fine.

The second is a restriction not present in LGPL-2.1, so another problem.

> >  IV - The software can be included in an application where the other
> >  components are either free or not, and this user licence remains
> >  applicable and should be given unchanged to recipients of the
> >  combined application.

Up to "applicable" is a statement of fact.  From "should" seems like
an opinion (else they'd use "must" like in section III) and I think
it's fine to state it.


So section II and the second part of section III are additional
restrictions, which means we cannot satisfy both Genicorp and GNU
licences simultaneously, which means we have no permission to
distribute this software, which means it should not be uploaded until
this bug is fixed.

I don't think either of those are translation errors.

If someone agrees, please make CPAN aware of the licence status of
this module.  I'd suggest emailing a summary of this bug to
bug-OpenOffice-OODoc [at] rt.cpan.org


> A fellow from #debian-perl recommended I ask here to clarify things.

Thanks to the #debian-perl fellow!  Sorry to bring bad news in reply :(

Hope that clarifies!
-- 
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]

Bug#496659: Genicorp General Public Licence

[MJ Ray]

"Bryan Donlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It sounds like upstream may have meant to go for a dual-licensing
> arrangement, but incorrectly stated "both" rather than "either" - it'd
> probably be a good idea to contact upstream and ask for clarification.
> Certainly if this was a dual-license arrangement with LGPL+$anything
> it would be acceptable for main.

The original French
http://search.cpan.org/src/JMGDOC/OpenOffice-OODoc-2.103/LICENCE.FR
says neither "both" nor "either", but my understanding is that such a
list would usually be read as "both".  I hope you're right, though.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#442032: CPAL (was: Bug#442032: ITP: openproj -- A desktop replacement for Microsoft Project. It is capable of sharing files with Microsoft Project...)

[MJ Ray]

Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> On 9/13/07, Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * License : (CPAL)
> 
> Seems like another MPL-based license. Any volunteers for reviewing it?
> (I don't have time atm.)

Differences from the MPL, found with a wdiff:

> 3.6 Distribution of Executable Versions.
> [...] If You distribute the Executable version under a different
> license You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ
> from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial
> Developer, Original Developer or any Contributor. You hereby agree to
> indemnify the Initial Developer, Original Developer and every
> Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer,
> Original Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms
> You offer.

The term Original Developer is added here, but isn't in the Definitions.
Who is the Original Developer if not the Initial Developer?  (see also
under clause 14 below.)

I don't think this is a problem in this case, but it seems worth noting
the confusion and possible non-copyright-holder enforcement capability.

> 6.1 New Versions. [...]
> 6.2 Effect of New Versions.
> 6.3 Derivative Works.

Socialtext replaces Netscape and CPAL replaces MPL in these.  OK.

> 7. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY.
> 8. TERMINATION.
> 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
> 12. RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS.

The undefined term Original Developer is added again in these. OK.

> 13. MULTIPLE-LICENSED CODE.

CPAL replaces NPL here - NPL isn't MPL, so is this an editing error?

Now to the additional terms:

> 14. ADDITIONAL TERM: ATTRIBUTION
> (a) As a modest attribution to the organizer of the development of the
> Original Code ("Original Developer"), in the hope that its promotional
> value may help justify the time, money and effort invested in writing
> the Original Code, the Original Developer may include in Exhibit B
> ("Attribution Information") a requirement that each time an Executable
> and Source Code or a Larger Work is launched or initially run (which
> includes initiating a session), a prominent display of the Original
> Developer's Attribution Information (as defined below) must occur on
> the graphic user interface employed by the end user to access such
> Covered Code (which may include display on a splash screen), if any.

Is this a requirement to display a splash screen?

Here the term Original Developer is specified as "the organizer of the
development of the Original Code" which sounds to me like it could be
the sponsor or project host, rather than the Initial Developer.  Does
anyone know whether "organizer" has a non-obvious legal meaning?

> The size of the graphic image should be consistent with the size of
> the other elements of the Attribution Information. If the access by
> the end user to the Executable and Source Code does not create a
> graphic user interface for access to the Covered Code, this obligation
> shall not apply. If the Original Code displays such Attribution
> Information in a particular form (such as in the form of a splash
> screen, notice at login, an "about" display, or dedicated attribution
> area on user interface screens), continued use of such form for that
> Attribution Information is one way of meeting this requirement for
> notice.
> (b) Attribution information may only include a copyright notice, a
> brief phrase, graphic image and a URL ("Attribution Information") and
> is subject to the Attribution Limits as defined below. [...snip!]

Despite the naming, I think this is a forced advert.

> 15. ADDITIONAL TERM: NETWORK USE.
> The term "External Deployment" means the use, distribution, or
> communication of the Original Code or Modifications in any way such
> that the Original Code or Modifications may be used by anyone other
> than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those
> persons or made available as an application intended for use over a
> network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder,
> You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Code or
> Modifications as a distribution under section 3.1 and make Source Code
> available under Section 3.2.

I think this is essentially an Affero-like clause, but I don't think it
actually succeeds in requiring Source Code is made available to all 
over-the-network users, as one can just put it on the 'same media' even
if that isn't entirely network-accessible.  So, maybe not a problem.

> EXHIBIT A. Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0. [...]

Seems similar to the MPL one, but my wdiff is a bit poor by this point
because of the amount of extra text in the ADDITIONAL CLAUSES.

So, in conclusion, I think this is unacceptable if the EXHIBIT B
ad-ware clause is used in bad ways and I'm worried by the new Original
Developer term.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct



-- 
T

Bug#442032: CPAL (was: Bug#442032: ITP: openproj -- A desktop replacement for Microsoft Project. It is capable of sharing files with Microsoft Project...)

[MJ Ray]

Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CPAL is an OSI approved license.

That's informative, but not sufficient to show that *software* under that
licence follows the DFSG.  (OSI has lawyers advocating licences, while
debian looks at software for users.)

Would you explain:-
 - can section 14 be a requirement to display an advert and must the
 openproj software display such an advert? (possible DFSG 3 problem)
 - why is NPL replaced with CPAL in section 13? (merely strange)
 - why is Original Developer added? (less worrying)

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]

Bug#383316: Derivative works for songs

[MJ Ray]

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, if the author says that it's a metal version of Ryu's theme, I
> think he means that the melody is the same, even though the musical
> genre is changed.
> *If* this is the case, I would call it a cover and hence I'm afraid it
> qualifies as an adaptation or derivative work of the original
> soundtrack, which is copyrighted by CAPCOM (most probably).
> 
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:05:34 +0100 Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > Obviously debian-legal are not lawyers, but I would appreciate your
> > opinions. I could just leave it out to be on the safe side, I could
> > leave it in, hope that the ftp-masters accept it and hope that nothing
> > comes of it or I could try and get an opinion from someone like SPI.
> 
> I would leave it out.

I agree.

> There's another issue with the remaining four songs, though.
> Is their source available?
> I mean: what's the preferred form[1] for making modifications to the
> songs?  Is this form available?

I hope that the scores are available, or a track-by-track recording,
to avoid any build-depends on Sony ACID Pro 5 in a really clear way.

However, for debian compilation of the game, isn't the preferred source
form the mixed recording?  The one used in the build?

Puzzled,
-- 
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]

Bug#421513: sphpblog

[MJ Ray]

I echo the comments about the inconsistent licence.

Also, I notice this from the ITP:
> Simple PHP Blog only requires PHP 4 [...]

while http://simplephpblog.com/static.php?page=static040502-230734 says:
> The main advantage of using Simple PHP Blog is that it only requires
> PHP 5 (or greater) [...]

Which PHP is it?

Additionally, I wonder about the path/query confusion in the above URI
and I'm disappointed that image captchas are an option in this software.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#428185: ITP: evolution-python -- python bindings for libebook and libecal

[MJ Ray]

Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Perrier wrote:
> >>   Description : python bindings for libebook and libecal
> > 
> > Isn't 'Python' supposed to be spelled with an initial capital? [...]

I think so here.  It's used as a name.

> I think it should be accessing data, not accessing to data. [...]

I think both "allows accessing to data" and "allows accessing data"
are slightly wrong.  It should be of the form "allows FEATURE" and
FEATURE is "access to data" here.  However, this seems moot now.

> On a 
> different note, I'm not sure that the shortened description is as 
> accurate as it can be: I would like to avoid equating accessing data via 
> evolution-data-server to accessing evolution data, as it seems to become 
> gnome's standard way of accessing contacts and calendar-like information 
> (the rdepends of e-d-s seems to have a small parade of gnome apps 
> dealing with such data).

I'm not sure whether it's standard, so I've written "a" not "the".

> Maybe something along the lines of
>
>Evolution-python allows python programs to interface the Evolution
>Data Server. Evolution Data Server is the GNOME backend for storing
>address book, calendar and todo list information.

Evolution-python allows programs using Python to interface with the
Evolution Data Server, which is a GNOME store of address book,
calendar and task list information.

Notes:
- Dictionaries seem inconsistent about to-do, so I replaced it.
- Not sure about "python programs" and "programs in Python" seems too
narrow.  If it's like guile, then programs which use Python but aren't
entirely written in Python can still access it.
- I hate "backend" and it was ridiculed on the BBC last week.

[...]
> P.S.: I'm not subscribed to debian-l10n-english, so I would appreciate 
> CCs for list replies.

Done.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#389876: KOHA

[MJ Ray]

reopen 186958
merge 389876 186958
stop

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Janusz S. Bień) wrote:
> Is there a way to merge RTP with ITP or RTP should be simply closed?

I'll try.

> By the way, what is the current status of packaging?

Most of the dependencies are packaged and need polishing and
uploading.  The main koha package is still at an early stage, but
should be ready for 3.0 in a few months.  I'm grappling with some
packaging decisions in the thread at
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2007/07/msg2.html
- any help there would be welcome.

> In the koha-devel archive the latest posting on the topic is the
> message
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/koha-devel/2007-01/msg00024.html
> but I didn't find any follow-up.

No, the latest postings are
  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/koha-devel/2007-07/msg00025.html
  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/koha-devel/2007-06/msg00023.html
  http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.koha/7969

Hope that informs,
-- 
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Bug#357791: irc2html.scm: changing back from ITP to RFP

[MJ Ray]

retitle 357791 ITP: irc2html.scm -- Convert IRC chat logs into valid HTML with 
valid CSS
owner 357791 !
thanks

That was a really unhelpful automatic email, making work for busy
developers.  This would be a fairly quick package, but I've not had
time for it.  I still intend to package it, when time permits.
Help is welcome, either directly or through collab-maint.

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100525080957.11b54f7...@nail.towers.org.uk

Bug#186958: koha: changing back from ITP to RFP

[MJ Ray]

retitle 186958 ITP: koha -- Web-based library automation package
owner 186958 !
thanks

That was a really unhelpful automatic email, making work for busy
developers.  People over at koha-community.org are working on
packaging right now.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100525080726.e2db1f7...@nail.towers.org.uk

Bug#87816: wily ITP -- old package being updated

[MJ Ray]

Hi,

Sorry, but I didn't spot this bug before.  I'm working on updating the
previous wily package to close the reported bugs held against it and
hopefully make it ready to re-enter debian.  I'd be happy to work with you
or pass you the work done so far.

You mention the supporting packages required: 9fonts and 9libs.  The current
package doesn't use these.  Can you explain their purpose and whether I'm
missing something, please?

Thanks,
-- 
MJR

Bug#87816: Accepted wily 0.13.41-2 (i386 source)

[MJ Ray]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> Thom, I assume you are acting as the sponsor of MJ Ray.  Do you know
> that wily is orphaned and that Matthew Wilcox intends to adopt the
> package (see #87816).

A report was added to that bug on 22 Feb 2002, nearly a year after the
original ITA.  No response was received, but it looks as though I should
have cc'd Matthew (I thought the BTS would take care of it).

Although I'd prefer to pass it to someone with bigger ideas on packaging it,
I need this program now and I am willing to bugfix and maintain it until
such time as Matthew returns to it.  I was advised to change maintainer to
myself for the time being (I think by Josip Rodin, but I've not checked
references).  Apologies if this has cause problems.
- -- 
MJ Ray   Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8q5opPcY2rvOKXY0RAqpPAJsGnoEY0PYcoR60vLSJpXnERBzVlwCeKO4l
N7+WG+1BcO56StpV/6f9vUg=
=EBw4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#186958: [Koha] ANNOUNCE: Koha perl dependency RPMs for Red Hat 9 (fwd)

[MJ Ray]

This may assist someone, but packages need updating to 2.0.0 prereleases

Bug#212000: Another package with similar function exists

[MJ Ray]

Anyone looking for this package who just wants to produce html from 
latex sources should consider using tex4ht, which uses TeX instead of 
reimplementing in perl.  Later versions can also produce xhtml 
(xhtlatex) and OO.org (oolatex) files.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Bug#82572: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#82572: RFP: Sapphire - a small window manager)

[MJ Ray]

Email address is now [EMAIL PROTECTED] as I have left themes.org
-- 
MJR

Bug#338077: sword-text-kjv - King James Version and Royal Letters Patent

[MJ Ray]

debian-legal has reviewed this topic before. You can read it in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00108.html
Some of the links there have rotted, but it seemed clearly not
Crown copyright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible
Wikipedia asserts that the KJV is still copyrighted in England.
I think Wikipedia is incomplete at best. Yet again, it does not
seem possible to verify a Wikipedia assertion from evidence
cited in its article. The discussion link on the article
expresses doubt and many of the people discussing it use
"letters patent/copyright" which seems confused to me.

It is my present understanding that the royal letters patent
control printing, not copyright, which did not exist here when
this started.  This "orthogonality" or "independence" is
mentioned in articles, including some you can find online like
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html
Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom..., by J.A.L. Sterling.

Lionel Elie Mamane cited the 1998 Copyright Act, which surprised
me because I've not heard of it. Which country is it for?

I haven't yet found anything credibly showing extension of the
prerogative to electronic distribution, or more generally to
become a Crown copyright. I don't think we generally grant
the monarchy new prerogatives these days and "The Crown cannot
invent new prerogative powers" (2002-03 Public Admin. Select
Comm. Press Notice 19).

The act currently in force in England is the Copyright Designs
and Patents Act 1988 as amended. If the KJV were covered by
Crown Copyright, wouldn't that have expired after 125 years? I
think the letters patent and royal prerogative are the problem.

So, it's not a problem to *distribute* the KJV in England, as
far as I can see, but it seems you're not free to print it here.
The same may be true of some other Commonwealth countries,
as listed in s.3 and notes of Sterling above.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#338077: sword-text-kjv - King James Version and Royal Letters Patent

[MJ Ray]

Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00108.html
> 
> I don't see a conclusive answer in that discussion; only doubt and
> "didn't find any proof that this restriction still holds". I'd prefer
> if we could find a specific abrogation of the restriction.

Trying to prove that any unseen letters patent do not apply is
rather difficult, isn't it?  We don't know the current letters
patent (if any) to know for sure whether we can do anything.

> I see... Then it would make the KJV merely non-free in the UK, not
> illegal to distribute. On the other hand, I wouldn't be too surprised
> if the courts would interpret "printing" in such an old text as "any
> efficient way to disseminate / distribute".

I would be very surprised by such an interpretation. In recent
copyright-related cases I've read (like the Sony anti-hacking),
the courts seem very intolerant of attempts to stretch words.

> > This "orthogonality" or "independence" is
> > mentioned in articles, including some you can find online like
> > http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html
> > Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom..., by J.A.L. Sterling.
> 
> This one doesn't contain the string "ortho" and "indepen" only at one
> place that doesn't seem to apply.

Apologies. I did not mean to suggest the words were quoted from that
article. I wrote and emphasised them before looking for references.
/orthogonality/ or /independence/ may have been better.

[...]
> > The act currently in force in England is the Copyright Designs
> > and Patents Act 1988 as amended. If the KJV were covered by
> > Crown Copyright, wouldn't that have expired after 125 years? I
> > think the letters patent and royal prerogative are the problem.
> 
> On the other hand, it says (section 171):
> 
> 171.-(1) Nothing in this Part affecs-
>(a) any right or privilege of any person under any enactment
>(except where the enactment is expressly repealed, amended or
>modified by this Act);
>(b) any right or privilege of the Crown subsisting otherwise
>than under an enactment;
> Wouldn't this preserve this perpetual Crown Copyright / Royal
> Prerogative / ...?

I've seen no credible evidence of perpetual Crown Copyright (CC)
covering this package. That's not surprising because CC wasn't
mentioned in early copyright law. The 1911 Act created a CC with
a term of 50 years, later extended up to 125 years by the 1988.

The above does not affect royal prerogatives, as it says.

> I'm starting to think that the Wikipedia article talks of "copyright"
> loosely, not only to what is called "copyright" legally, but of all
> legal restrictions of dealings with distribution, performance,
> derivation, ... of literary works.

Bluntly, I think some of the authors of that Wikipedia article
would struggle to tell copyright from a hole in the floor. This
bug should probably be tagged moreinfo until more reliable data
appears, regardless of other actions.

This may be another case where non-XX (a way for mirror
operators to block locally-uncertain content) would be good.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#158150: ITA: emelfm -- file manager for X/gtk

[MJ Ray]

The developers have not answered email, but the download site at
http://emelfm.sf.net/ still exists.  I use this program, so I announce my
intent to adopt it once I have escaped DAMnation.
-- 
MJ Ray   Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is not an official statement or order.Web:www.luminas.co.uk

Bug#281351: Update/Questions on swxtotext

[MJ Ray]

I am not sure why mako claims I do not want to upload this.
I just do not have time to prepare the packaging in the near
future, nor the need. I am happy to review and sponsor uploads
if wanted. I think not packaging it myself is also a good
habit which helps avoid DDs from flooding debian with their
own unrequested software.

As you might expect, I disagree that a perl script is as robust
and flexible as the simple shell script approach, although
it does have other features. I don't need those features yet,
as few people email OO writer files around (mostly uncorrected
former MS Word file emailers who changed to OpenOffice) and
I've only ever once been sent an unsolicited OO spreadsheet.

-- 
MJR/slef
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#239518: GPL vs. OSL

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-04-22 01:26:20 +0100 Anibal Monsalve Salazar 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:20:55AM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:

AFAI can see elfutils is doubly licenced under GPL and/or OSL:

Could someone shed some light on the license issues related to bug
#239518?


elfutils went after 
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221761


I am rather irritated by the incomplete quoting of elfutils sources 
which trimmed key facts like:


* Wed Jan  7 2004 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.91-1
- include only libelf under GPL plus wrapper scripts

or the copyright headers in the source files everywhere proclaiming 
that they are OSL-covered files. If you read through the %if %{gpl} 
sections of the spec in the upstream sources, I think you may find 
that you can build libelf to use binutils. I hope that's some use to 
you.


However, much of elfutils is still OSL and still non-free.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Bug#272867: missing licenses in gnulib

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-09-22 14:58:24 +0100 Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


[ putting debian-legal on CC ]


For what end?

There's also the problem with non-free documentation in "doc" 
directory (3

files), but I'm aware that for the FSF freedom isn't important for
documentation so I'm ommiting the list here.


To me, this looks like you are trolling a list @gnu.org - please be 
more precise with your wording on this topic. My current understanding 
is that the FSF does not consider "is this documentation also free 
software?" to be a sensible question, while many debian developers do. 
I agree with the conclusion that it's better to omit them from 
discussion for now.


--
MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk

Bug#376431: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?

[MJ Ray]

Jason Spiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is the license pasted below OK?

I don't think so.  It seems to contradict itself - resulting in a
possible termination clause.  It also requires long-term distribution,
discriminates against some commercial activities and attempts to enforce
patents unrelated to this software (or any software).  At best, it
seems unclear, so I'd advise seeking clarification of 1, 2.1(b), 2.1(c),
2.2(e), 6, 12.1(c), 13.5(b).  After that, it depends how you and
ftpmasters feel about everyone travelling to California.

> It is OSI-approved, but someone on
> debian-devel mentioned there were many problematic bits, including
> 2.2(c), and advised me to post it here.

The debian-devel thread is visible at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00029.html

Sadly, the failed Open Source Initiative seems to approve licences
far too readily these days.

> I hope to package openwatcom, a C/C++ IDE that produces efficient DOS,
> Linux, and Windows code and includes a superb debugger.

That is ITP bug 376431

> Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0
> 
> 1. General; Definitions.  This License applies only to the following
> software programs:  the open source versions of Sybase's Watcom C/C++
> and Fortran compiler products ("Software"), which are modified versions
> of, with significant changes from, the last versions made commercially
> available by Sybase.  As used in this License:

Does this definition of licence restrict the permitted derived works?

> 1.1 "Applicable Patent Rights" mean: [...]

The inclusion of patent rights in a copyright licence worries me.

[...]
> 2. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions.Subject to the terms and
> conditions of this License, Sybase hereby grants You, effective on the
> date You accept this License and download the Original Code, a
> world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, to the extent of
> Sybase's Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the Original
> Code, to do the following:
> 
> 2.1 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and distribute
> Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal
> research and development and/or Personal Use, provided that in each
> instance:
> 
> (a) You must retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the
> copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Sybase as
> they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the
> Original Code that refer to this License; and
> 
> (b) You must retain and reproduce a copy of this License with every copy
> of Source Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute, and You
> may not offer or impose any terms on such Source Code that alter or
> restrict this License or the recipients' rights hereunder, except as
> permitted under Section 6.

This combines with 1 above to make me wonder even more whether the
permitted derived works are limited.

> (c) Whenever reasonably feasible you should include the copy of this
   ^^^
Lawyerbomb, especially about something as icky as click-wrap.

> License in a click-wrap format, which requires affirmative acceptance by
> clicking on an "I accept" button or similar mechanism.  If a click-wrap
> format is not included, you must include a statement that any use
> (including without limitation reproduction, modification or
> distribution) of the Software, and any other affirmative act that you
> define, constitutes acceptance of the License, and instructing the user
> not to use the Covered Code in any manner if the user does not accept
> all of the terms and conditions of the License.
> 
> 2.2 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and Deploy Covered
> Code, provided that in each instance:
> 
> (a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to
> the Source Code of the Covered Code;
> 
> (b) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the
> notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your
> Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that You changed the files and the date of any change;
> 
> (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications
> publicly available under the terms of this License, including the
> license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy
> the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial
> Deployment, whichever is longer.  You should preferably distribute the
> Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g.
> download from a web site);

This was noted on debian-devel as a problem and I think I agree.  It's
unusual in that it's unlikely to be a practical problem unless ftpmasters
remove the package, but the time differences probably make it fail DFSG.

> (d) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You
> must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in
> related documentation, stating that Source

Bug#376431: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?

[MJ Ray]

Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:44:35AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > 12.1 Termination.  This License and the rights granted hereunder
> > > will terminate:
> > > [...]
> > > (c) automatically without notice if You, at any time during the
> > > term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement
> > > (including as a cross claim or counterclaim) against Sybase or
> > > any Contributor.
> > 
> > This copyright licence attempts to enforce all Sybase's and
> > Contributors' patents, whether applicable or not.  All patents. 
> > Not just software ones.
> 
> Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at
> all.  It speaks about "Your" (ie, the user/distributor's) patents.

Yes, I got that backwards.  Sorry.  It's the other type of bad patent
clause.  It seeks to allow Sybase and Contributors to infringe
Licensees' patents, whether applicable/software or not.

Thanks for the correction and explanation,
-- 
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]

Bug#389876: ITP: koha -- web-based library catalogue (ILS/OPAC)

[MJ Ray]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

Web-based online public access catalogue (OPAC) with a full integrated 
 library system (ILS) including catalogue, circulation and acquisition 
 management facilities, built in perl upon well-defined standards such 
 as a MySQL database for storage and Z39.50 for bibliographic data 
 retrieval.

Homepage: http://www.koha.org/
Copyright licence: GPL-2

Packaging is discussed on the koha-devel list.

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]

Bug#405441: ITP: smc -- A Jump and Run game like Super Mario World written in C++

[MJ Ray]

Alex de Oliveira Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if it is a good program because it have images from "Mario" 
> (a trademark of Nintendo[1]). I'm sending one copy of this email to 
> debian-legal. On the other hand, if somebody wants to package a SMC 
> please look if it is possible, because it have copyright license.

What copyright licence are the graphics under?  It looks like they may
infringe Nintendo's copyright.  The trademark seems less worrying.

I think it could be included in main with alternative 'clean room'
graphics instead of the red-hatted plumber, green pipes and so on.
Are there any?

> [1] -  http://mario.nintendo.com/

That site is useless, requires Flash instead of http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/

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]

Bug#405441: ITP: smc -- A Jump and Run game like Super Mario World written in C++

[MJ Ray]

"Muammar Wadih El Khatib Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, you mean it could be included in main using alternative graphics
> instead of the current ones. If it would not be possible to change the
> current images,  I'd like to know: couldn't be smc included into
> debian? couldn't be smc included in another category instead of main?

Since the end of non-US http://www.debian.org/mirror/list-non-US
I don't think there is another category instead of main.  main is
debian and debian is main.

The mirrors also have non-free (stuff that can be redistributed but
does not follow the DFSG) and contrib (stuff that could go in main if
it didn't depend on something not in main), but they are not part of
debian.  Also:
- IF smc's graphics infringe Nintendo's copyright THEN we probably
  cannot legally distribute them at all, even in non-free.
- Therefore, IF smc's graphics cannot be changed THEN we probably
  cannot distribute smc.

Sorry about the conditionals.  I don't know Nintendo's work well
enough to have a strong opinion whether or not smc's graphics infringe
Nintendo's copyright.

Hope that explains,
-- 
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]

Bug#412063: ITP: rott -- Rise of the Triad: The HUNT begins

[MJ Ray]

Fabian Greffrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have two questions addressed at the debian-legal team:
> 
> (1) The shareware data files can be found at
> . Inside the zip file there is
> a file called `VENDOR.DOC' containing the copyright and licensing terms.
> As far as I understand the terms it is legally unobjective to
> automatically download and install the files as long as we do not
> actively redistribute them. Or are there any traps in the phrasing?

That zip does not contain that file:

Archive:  1rott13.zip
  Length Date   TimeName
    
   142412  08-01-95 13:30   INSTALL.EXE
  3595834  08-01-95 13:30   ROTTSW13.SHR
  504  08-01-95 13:30   FILE_ID.DIZ
    ---
  3738750   3 files

In general, I can't see how the terms of 1rott13.zip can affect whether
or not the GPL'd rott downloads it automatically.  It's up to the FTP
site owner to ban people if they object to downloading, IMO.  What
people do after downloading is not our concern.

If appropriate, please send the text of VENDOR.DOC to debian-legal again
with the question.

> (2) The game contains graphical violence. It has an RSAC rating of 4,
> whatever that means. However, the violence level is adjustable. To avoid
> problems (in countries that are very sensitive concerning graphical
> violence in computer games, e.g. Germany), should I hardcode the game to
> a lower violence level?

I think not, but I suspect it depends on your country.

> By the way, the game is on the German `Index' (some kind of nasties
> list). That means, it must not be sold to underage persons and not even
> be advertised *in Germany*. However, Quake 2 and Doom are on that list,
> too. Any advise?

German advertisers and distributors should already be aware of this
question.  See bug #313159

Personally, I do not understand how that German Index is a workable law,
but I'm not selling or advertising such materials to young Germans.
-- 
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]

Bug#383316: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs

[MJ Ray]

Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which you have
> to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician).

Please, ask Finland's *legislators* if the situation there is really
that anti-competitive closed shop.  I've heard similar things before, but
as I'm not much of a musician and negiotiated a cancellation on my book
publishing contract, I've not had to look at these problems for myself.

I suspect it is that bad (the EU approach to copyright is a wrong-headed
protectionist one at present), but anyway it would be good to make
legislators aware that there are creative people who are hindered by this.

Monopoly collecting societies seem long overdue a reality check and
a reminder that they should work for the composers/authors and not only
the legacy publishers.

If Teosto has a fundamental objection to releasing music as free software
and Teosto approval is an essential requirement, then we either change
Teosto or we change free software.  I say change Teosto.
-- 
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]

Bug#505878: ITP: libfunambol-cpp-client-api -- unclarified AGPL

[MJ Ray]

libfunambol-cpp-client-api appears to be under a plain AGPLv3.

Clause 13 of the AGPLv3 requires hosting users to provide "access
to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to
every visitor to the web pages generated by this software.  If used to
produce a public website, this is an infinite download liability and a
significant cost may result from running the software.  Further, the
cost is disproportionate to the modification because the whole
software must be offered and not only the modifications.

So, I believe this does not meet DFSG 1, 4, 3 and/or 6 as it stands:
it requires a fee for use, restricts the source code from being
modified without allowing distribution of patch files, and/or
discriminates against use of modified versions for production of
public websites.

I think some copyright holders of software under AGPLv3 have stated
that linking to an upstream download site is sufficient provision of
access for the parts you did not modify, regardless of the
availability of that site, which would clear DFSG 4 and reduce the
1/3/6 concerns immensely.  For example
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00056.html
There is nothing in the FSF FAQ about this yet either way.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Would libfunambol-cpp-client-api's copyright holders agree to make a
similar statement?

Regards,
-- 
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]

Bug#505878: ITP: libfunambol-cpp-client-api -- unclarified AGPL

[MJ Ray]

David Bremner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might want to follow up on the thread in debian-legal
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00046.html
> I understand someone from Funambol is following that thread.
>
> It would be nice to have some concensus about what, if any exceptions
> are required for AGPL software to be in main.

I'm aware of the thread.  Francesco Poli already provided a link from
that thread to a more detailed list of queries
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html
and I don't think it becomes more persuasive if I repeat one of them.

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]

Bug#508468: ITP: ssreflect -- small scale reflection extension for the Coq proof assistant

[MJ Ray]

Stephane Glondu  wrote:
> * Package name: ssreflect
> * URL : http://www.msr-inria.inria.fr/Projects/math-components
> * License : CeCILL-B

RFC from debian-legal regarding the license:-

I think we've consensus on software that uses CeCILL (upgradeable to
GPL, so meets DFSG) and we've discussed CeCILL-C, but what do we think
of B?  My searches didn't find much discussion of it here, or any
packages in the archive using it yet.  A copy follows.  Please cc the
bug report on relevant replies.

My concerns are the infinitely-recursive definition of "Software" in
1, deemed acceptance of the licence by downloading (possibly before
seeing the licence) in 3.1, the disconnected advertising requirement
in 5.3.4.3 and the choice of Paris as venue in 13.2.  There seems no
obvious GPL-upgrade escape route this time.

It's not a DFSG matter, but I'm mildly irritated by the use of
US English by EU-tax-funded groups!


CeCILL-B FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT


Notice

This Agreement is a Free Software license agreement that is the result
of discussions between its authors in order to ensure compliance with
the two main principles guiding its drafting:

* firstly, compliance with the principles governing the distribution
  of Free Software: access to source code, broad rights granted to
  users,
* secondly, the election of a governing law, French law, with which
  it is conformant, both as regards the law of torts and
  intellectual property law, and the protection that it offers to
  both authors and holders of the economic rights over software.

The authors of the CeCILL-B (for Ce[a] C[nrs] I[nria] L[ogiciel] L[ibre])
license are: 

Commissariat ? l'Energie Atomique - CEA, a public scientific, technical
and industrial research establishment, having its principal place of
business at 25 rue Leblanc, immeuble Le Ponant D, 75015 Paris, France.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, a public scientific
and technological establishment, having its principal place of business
at 3 rue Michel-Ange, 75794 Paris cedex 16, France.

Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique -
INRIA, a public scientific and technological establishment, having its
principal place of business at Domaine de Voluceau, Rocquencourt, BP
105, 78153 Le Chesnay cedex, France.


Preamble

This Agreement is an open source software license intended to give users
significant freedom to modify and redistribute the software licensed
hereunder.

The exercising of this freedom is conditional upon a strong obligation
of giving credits for everybody that distributes a software
incorporating a software ruled by the current license so as all
contributions to be properly identified and acknowledged.

In consideration of access to the source code and the rights to copy,
modify and redistribute granted by the license, users are provided only
with a limited warranty and the software's author, the holder of the
economic rights, and the successive licensors only have limited liability.

In this respect, the risks associated with loading, using, modifying
and/or developing or reproducing the software by the user are brought to
the user's attention, given its Free Software status, which may make it
complicated to use, with the result that its use is reserved for
developers and experienced professionals having in-depth computer
knowledge. Users are therefore encouraged to load and test the
suitability of the software as regards their requirements in conditions
enabling the security of their systems and/or data to be ensured and,
more generally, to use and operate it in the same conditions of
security. This Agreement may be freely reproduced and published,
provided it is not altered, and that no provisions are either added or
removed herefrom.

This Agreement may apply to any or all software for which the holder of
the economic rights decides to submit the use thereof to its provisions.


Article 1 - DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this Agreement, when the following expressions
commence with a capital letter, they shall have the following meaning:

Agreement: means this license agreement, and its possible subsequent
versions and annexes.

Software: means the software in its Object Code and/or Source Code form
and, where applicable, its documentation, "as is" when the Licensee
accepts the Agreement.

Initial Software: means the Software in its Source Code and possibly its
Object Code form and, where applicable, its documentation, "as is" when
it is first distributed under the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

Modified Software: means the Software modified by at least one
Contribution.

Source Code: means all the Software's instructions and program lines to
which access is required so as to modify the Software.

Object Code: means the binary files originating from the compilation of
the Source Code.

Holder: means the holder(s) of the economic rights over the Initial
Softwar

Bug#508249: ITP: libio-pager-perl -- pipe output to a pager if destination is a TTY

[MJ Ray]

"brian m. carlson"  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:19:42AM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> >* License : other
> > - Thou shalt not claim ownership of unmodified materials.
> > - Thou shalt not claim whole ownership of modified materials.
> > - Thou shalt grant the indemnity of the provider of materials.
>
> This may be a problem.  I know in the past, clauses requiring
> indemnification were not allowed.  CCing debian-legal for discussion.
> Please follow up there.

What clauses requiring indemnification were not allowed?

As a counter-example, there are clauses requiring indemnification in
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/postfix/current/copyright
(under 4.  COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION but still needs considering, to
avoid discriminating against a field of endeavour).

> > - Thou shalt use and dispense freely without other restrictions.

I think this licence is ambiguous and should be discouraged, but I
haven't identified any particular DFSG concerns with libio-pager-perl.

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#509164: libdatetime-format-sqlite-perl URL and license?

[MJ Ray]

This module does not appear on URL : http://datetime.perl.org/
according to the search box on that site.

Also, is the licence GPL+Artistic or "as Perl"?  That's what I was
trying to check.

Thanks for any replies,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#510493: RFC: licence of ITP: s3sync-ruby

[MJ Ray]

I hope no-one minds, but I'd like some smart analysis of this software's
licence, so I'm asking debian-legal for their views.

Please keep the Cc to the ITP report on replies.

juanro...@gmail.com wrote:
* Package name: s3sync-ruby
* URL : http://s3sync.net/
* License : Other

The licence shown in
http://code.google.com/p/s3sync-s3cmd/source/browse/trunk/s3sync/s3sync.rb
is:

# This software code is made available "AS IS" without warranties of any
# kind.  You may copy, display, modify and redistribute the software
# code either by itself or as incorporated into your code; provided that
# you do not remove any proprietary notices.  Your use of this software 
# code is at your own risk and you waive any claim against the author
# with respect to your use of this software code. 
# (c) 2007 s3sync.net

The whois for s3sync.net says:-
Registrant:
   ServEdge
   2605 Farragut Drive
   Domain Contact Info
   Springfield, IL  62704
   US

Meanwhile, the website and code seems pretty clearly to be by ferrix.

Questions:
1. does s3sync.net mean ServEdge for copyright or is it a distinct person?
2. if so, do we trust that author ferrix has assigned copyright to ServEdge?
3. is the licence any obstacle to meeting DFSG?
4. does this software meet the DFSG?

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#510493: RFC: licence of ITP: s3sync-ruby

[MJ Ray]

Florian Weimer  wrote:
> * MJ Ray:
>
> > 3. is the licence any obstacle to meeting DFSG?
>
> It doesn't mention the act of running the program or using it.
> Or does this activity fall under "display"?

The licence does mention using it, in "Your use of this software code
is at your own risk ...", so I doubt we can include it in "display".

If S3.rb is from
http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/entry.jspa?externalID=135&categoryID=47
(which it looks like at first glance in the tarball) then it claims to
be "New BSD" which seems very untrue, comparing the S3.rb licence to
http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license

Anyone got a good contact for relicensing at Amazon Data Services Inc?
If not, I'll try the er...@aws link on the above page next time I
remember.

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#492696: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+

[MJ Ray]

Damyan Ivanov  wrote:
> [Please Cc me on replies. Thanks]
> Most of the code is licensed under "the same terms as Perl itself",
[...]
> In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some 
> more icons are licensed under GPL-2.
>
> From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for the main code, that 
> still leaves the combination of GPL-2 (code and some .png icons) and 
> LGPL-3+ (.png icons). Is such aggregation OK?

If it's mere aggregation, I believe each stays under their own licence.

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#511613: ITA: libpam-pwgen -- a password generator

[MJ Ray]

debian-legal opinions are in the thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/02/msg2.html

In summary: it contains typical mistakes, grants insufficient
permission to redistribute, grants insufficient permission to
redistribute modified versions (binaries), gives no indication under
what license terms the sharing must be done, doesn't specify which
“others” qualify, is postcardware-like, effectively terminates on the
death of the licensor and doesn't specify who are “all the other
pioneers”.

Thank you for taking on this task. Please ask upstream to choose one
of the common DFSG-free licenses.

Summarised from the emails by Paul Wise, Mark Weyer, Ben Finney and
myself.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#514984: ITP: getdata -- retrieval, updating and indexing of public data collections

[MJ Ray]

> * URL : http://wiki.debian.org/getData
> * License : AGPL

http://wiki.debian.org/getData says:-

  "distributed under the terms of the GNU Public License (GPL)."

The packager is also the copyright-holder, but this isn't a serving
application, so I beg you not to change to Affero which still has
significant open questions.  (see bug#495721)

Also, ITYM GNU General Public License.

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#517404: ITP: polyorb -- The PolyORB schizophrenic middleware for Ada

[MJ Ray]

> * URL : https://libre.adacore.com/polyorb/
> * License : GMGPL

Is that a typo?  Looks like GNU GPL from here.

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#517346: ITP: openmeeg -- library and tools for solving EEG and MEG forward and inverse problems

[MJ Ray]

> * URL : http://www-sop.inria.fr/odyssee/software/OpenMEEG/
> * License : CeCILL-B

There is a concern that CeCILL-B contaminates other software (the
debian websites) because of the advertising requirement in 5.3.4.3, as
explained in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/12/msg00059.html

Is it possible to convert it to the GNU GPL as described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/12/msg00045.html
and avoid this problem?

I think the debian archive has no mechanism that ensures reproduction
of an intellectual property notice on a website for all versions
distributed, so this may be a practical problem.

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#389876: ITP: koha -- web-based library catalogue (ILS/OPAC)

[MJ Ray]

"Trent W. Buck"  wrote: [...]
> Firstly, what is the status of the ITP?  Chris (part of the upstream
> Koha team) told me in #koha that in Lenny the dependencies are all
> resolved, so I guess that all that remains is to package Koha itself.

I've asked Chris Cormack about that on #koha just now. I thought
we're still two short: Class::Adapter and SMS::Send.

> How far along are you with that?

There's the collab-maint tree that you're probably aware of.
I'm currently testing a clean install at a client site.

The thorny problems are the ones where the koha installation usually
"interferes" with mysqld and wider system settings.

> Secondly, I wanted to let you know that I'm available to help work on
> this ITP.  I am a DM.  You can see my portfolio at the link below.  As
> yet, I don't have any experience with Perl packaging.
> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=trentb...@gmail.com
> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?packages=scheme48 (recently O'd)

Thanks.

> I looked briefly at upstream yesterday, and it seems to me that at a
> minimum you will want a -common package (due to the large amount of
> architecture-independent data files) and as there are apparently 50MB
> of translation files, possible also seperate koha-language-
> packages.

Yes, I'd agree with that split as a minimum.  I'm open to suggestions
about whether we want libkoha-perl and koha packages split or not.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef).  LMS developer and supporter for a small, friendly
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#520840: ITP: wordpress-theme-inove -- WordPress theme "iNove"

[MJ Ray]

> License: Creative Commons

What CC licence is being used?  I found no reference to it on the
URL given or in the download.  Is this even CC?

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#524835: ITP: thaifonts-siampradesh -- Thai TrueType fonts derived from DIP/SIPA contested fonts

[MJ Ray]

Theppitak Karoonboonyanan  wrote:
> * License : OFL-alike, with written notification requirement (see 
> below)

I believe this font is postcard-ware, so does not follow the DFSG, so
cannot be part of debian.  cc'ing debian-legal to check.

> * License:
>
> Font Computer Program License Agreement
>
> Reserved Font Names for this Font Computer Program:
> TH Krub, TH Krub Italic, TH Krub Bold, TH Krub Bold Italic,
> TH Niramit AS, TH Niramit AS Italic, TH Niramit AS Bold, TH Niramit AS Bold 
> Italic,
> TH Kodchasal, TH Kodchasal Italic, TH Kodchasal Bold, TH Kodchasal Bold 
> Italic,
> TH Sarabun PSK, TH Sarabun PSK Italic, TH Sarabun PSK Bold, TH Sarabun PSK 
> Bold Italic,
> TH K2D July8, TH K2D July8 Italic, TH K2D July8 Bold, TH K2D July8 Bold 
> Italic,
> TH Mali Grade 6, TH Mali Grade 6 Italic, TH Mali Grade 6 Bold, TH Mali Grade 
> 6 Bold Italic,
> TH Chakra Petch, TH Chakra Petch Italic, TH Chakra Petch Bold, TH Chakra 
> Petch Bold Italic,
> TH Baijam, TH Baijam Italic, TH Baijam Bold, TH Baijam Bold Italic,
> TH KoHo, TH KoHo Italic, TH KoHo Bold, TH KoHo Bold Italic,
> TH Fah Kwang, TH Fah Kwang Italic, TH Fah Kwang Bold, TH Fah Kwang Bold 
> Italic.

This is a long list of reserved names.  I don't know Thai words.
Does anyone know if the names are words which would usually be used
otherwise?  If so, this is a significant restriction on derived works
which would break DFSG 3 and/or 4.

> This Font Computer Program is the copyright of the Department of Intellectual
> Property (DIP), Ministry of Commerce and the Software Industry Promotion 
> Agency
> (Public Organization) (SIPA) 
>
> The purposes of this Font Computer Program License are to stimulate worldwide
> development of cooperative font creation, to benefit for academic, to share 
> and
> to develop in partnership with others.

While not a DFSG problem, I think it's misleading to call this
cooperative font creation when the sale restriction limits economic
participation and the notification requirement means it is not
autonomous.  Compare http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html

> Terms and Conditions of the Font Computer Program
>
> (1) Allow to use without any charges and allow to reproduce, study, adapt and
> distribute this Font Computer Program. Neither the original version nor 
> adapted
> version of Font Computer Program may be sold by itself, except bundled and/or
> sold with any computer program.
>
> (2) If you wish to adapt this Font Computer Program, you must notify copyright
> owners (DIP & SIPA) in writing.

This makes the font postcard-ware, breaking DFSG 1: free redistribution.

> (3) No adapted version of Font Computer Program may use the Reserved Font
> Name(s), the name(s) of the copyright owners and the author(s) of the Font
> Computer Program must not be used to promote or advertise any adapted version,
> except obtaining written permission from copyright owners and the author(s).
>
> (4) The adapted version of Font Computer Program must be released under the
> term and condition of this license.
>
> DISCLAIMER
> THE FONT COMPUTER PROGRAM AND RELATED FILES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT
> WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.  NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT THIS FONT COMPUTER PROGRAM
> WILL WORK AS EXPECTED OR WILL BE DEVELOPED FURTHUR IN ANY SPECIFIC WAY.  THERE
> IS NO OFFER OR GUARANTEE OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT.  

Spelling error: further not furthur.

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 debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#357791: ITP: irc2html.scm -- Convert IRC chat logs into valid HTML with valid CSS

[MJ Ray (Debian)]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "MJ Ray (Debian)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: irc2html.scm
  Version : 1.2
  Upstream Author : MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://mjr.towers.org.uk/software.html#other
* License : GPL
  Description : Convert IRC chat logs into valid HTML with valid CSS

Yet another converter from IRC log files to HTML, but this one produces valid
xhtml which really annoyed me about the other ones I found. It's not hard to
do and it's essential for accessibility. I also think the colour selection
algorithm is pretty neat too, hashing nicks with overrides possible.
It optionally takes one argument, which is put in the HTML page title. It
reads a common ircII log file from stdin and generates HTML on stdout, so
use pipes or < and > to redirect them to useful places. Debug information
should come to stderr.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (989, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (99, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i586)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.4.18-bf2.4
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]