[Fink-devel] Re: License for .info and .patch files
Doesn't the .info contain the copyright statement (in at least some cases)? Isn't there some implication here? To my mind, when reading the document, the copyright applies to its bearing instrument unless expressly stated otherwise. Considering that the copyright (at least in spirit) applies to usage as well as distribution, and the .info is necessary to use the package, one has another argument that the .info file must follow the same license. The .patch, if any, is incorporated by reference (from the perspective of one claiming copyright). By whom is one most worried about getting sued: the author of a peer-directed open-source project package? How does this compare, for argument's sake, with submitting an article for peer review to a journal? (... and is this really not all spelled out by sourceforge or osdn or ...?) ianal, just wondering where the lines are drawn --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Problems compiling imlib
On Mar 27, 2005, at 9:32 PM, Brent Edwards wrote: Dear Koen, Thank you for the letter! Indeed, I have installed the X11 SDK; I am currently using XEmacs on my system, compiled with fink. -- Brent So is imlib now working? If not, try searching Google, it will show you similar errors from fink users. Maybe one of the answers applies to your case. http://www.google.com/search? hl=en&q=%22X11%2FXlib.h%3A+No+such+file+or+directory%22+fink - Koen. --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files
On Mar 28, 2005, at 2:23 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Most of a finkinfo file is just a statement of facts, and is nearly entirely determined by technical requirements. Those parts are most likely not copyrightable at all. No worries there, then. What about an almanac? A news broadcast? An encyclopedia? These are all mere collections of facts. Are you trying to tell me that these cannot be copyrighted? The scripts, if of suffient length and creativity might be. (Ones that just invoke install probably aren't. Just another collection of facts.) The definition of copyright is not based on length nor creativity. Who is going to be the judge of whether your work is "creative" or of "sufficient length"? Is a movie based on a Shakespeare play not "creative" enough to be copyrighted? Is a seven-word poem copyrightable but a six-word one is not? Bottom line: Any original work of authorship in a tangible form of expression is copyrightable. Thus, .info files are copyrightable. Trevor --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files
David R. Morrison wrote: But what about the .info files? Should we declare them to be part of fink, and therefore under the GPL? Can we do this retroactively, even though we didn't make it clear to contributers in the past? Most of a finkinfo file is just a statement of facts, and is nearly entirely determined by technical requirements. Those parts are most likely not copyrightable at all. No worries there, then. The scripts, if of suffient length and creativity might be. (Ones that just invoke install probably aren't. Just another collection of facts.) The descriptions also might be. No idea how likely it is you have an implied license under the GPL. I'd guess you have some type of implied license to distribute and modify, as anyone who contributed was fairly clear that was going to happen. IANAL. --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
David R. Morrison wrote: Anthony, Thanks very much for this very helpful message. I'm curious of there is any difference for software released under the LGPL instead of the GPL. Can it legally link to openSSL? LGPL Sec. 6 seems to allow this: 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. Also, (6) requires you do one of 5 things; in short (read the license for details): (a) Accompany with source so the user may re-link (b) Use shared lib (c) 3yr offer of (a) (d) Explicitly allows distribution offered from same place (e) if you've already done above, you don't have to do it again. Fink, by distrubuting full source to both OpenSSL and the LGPL'd library, seems to easily comply with (a) via (d). However, do note that the LGPL is not really appropriate for anything but a library; see clause 2(a) for example: (2) You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) The modified work must itself be a software library. (Note that the LGLP gives different definitions for Library vs. library.) [FYI: I haven't spent much time considering the LGPL; it doesn't seem to come up as much.] --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Problems compiling imlib
Dear Koen, Thank you for the letter! Indeed, I have installed the X11 SDK; I am currently using XEmacs on my system, compiled with fink. -- Brent On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:25 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote: On Mar 26, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Brent Edwards wrote: gdk_imlib_private.h:42:22: X11/Xlib.h: No such file or directory Did you install the X11 SDK? It should be on one of your OS X disks. - Koen. --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [Fink-users] Re: gnome-python2-py23
Thanks a lot for that! On 29 Mar 2005, at 2:01, Jean-François Mertens wrote: On 28 Mar 2005, at 04:36, Jeremy Higgs wrote: The next package is gnome-python (2.4.2), which, because it depends on GNOME, has a mass of dependencies. I've been trying to make some sense out of them, but haven't figured out what dependencies should be included, and what versions. Are there any sort of guidelines for what dependencies should be included for a package relying on GNOME (or any part thereof)? For runtime deps, I use the following: /sw/var/logs# cat ~/bin/otool_deps #!/sw/bin/bash # "otool_deps pkgs" yields a comma separated list (possibly empty) (followed by a \n) of the packages # on which the given (installed) pkgs depend according to otool _ excluding the given pkgs themselves. dpkg -L $@ | xargs file | grep 'Mach\-O' | cut -f 1 -d ':' | xargs -r otool -L 2>/dev/null | grep -v ':$' \ | sed -r 's|^[[:space:]]*||g' | cut -f1 -d' ' | sort -u | xargs -r dpkg -S 2>/dev/null | cut -f1 -d':' \ | sort -u | grep -vxF "`tr ' ' '\n'<<<$*`" | xargs | sed 's| |, |g' The output has then still to be completed by the dependencies of all scripts, python-stuff in your case, etc. (Is there nothing available that would list all commands a given _ shell-, or perl- _ script can possibly be called to execute ? ) For BuildDepends, a frequent bet is that a priori one can safely add any -dev pkg whose shlibs are runtime deps. I is also useful to look at at your log-file to know what commands are executed, and what the configure script tests. Then, in the info files of those pkgs, look for comments like "Any pkg that BuildDepends on this one must also.." JF PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fink-devel] bittorrent-4.0.0-3
I originally had variants in the info file, and cirdan changed it for the alternatives framework and splitoffs. (At least that's the way I remember it.) I don't like alternatives much but I thought, hey, if he cared that much for them I'd leave them in. Now that cirdan doesn't have the time to help me fix things, I don't know if I should leave in the alternatives stuff or if I should remove it. I also don't see the need for the splitoffs, but I'm sure he had a reason for them. On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote: [maintainer cc'd] In the current version of bittorrent (4.0.0-3), installing bittorrent(non-x11) also builds the gui version (and needed dependencies like wxgtk and wxpython). This seems to be due to the use of splitoffs (base and -gui). In the previous version (3.4.2), the types of bittorrent were distinguished using variants (base and -x11), so that if the non-x11 version was chosen, none of the gui/x11 items were built. Can this behavior be restored? It is pointless to have a non-x11 version if it is going to build all the x11 files and dependencies anyway. Hanspeter -- Hisashi T Fujinaka - [EMAIL PROTECTED] BSEE(6/86) + BSChem(3/95) + BAEnglish(8/95) + MSCS(8/03) + $2.50 = latte --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] bittorrent-4.0.0-3
[maintainer cc'd] In the current version of bittorrent (4.0.0-3), installing bittorrent(non-x11) also builds the gui version (and needed dependencies like wxgtk and wxpython). This seems to be due to the use of splitoffs (base and -gui). In the previous version (3.4.2), the types of bittorrent were distinguished using variants (base and -x11), so that if the non-x11 version was chosen, none of the gui/x11 items were built. Can this behavior be restored? It is pointless to have a non-x11 version if it is going to build all the x11 files and dependencies anyway. Hanspeter -- Hanspeter Niederstrasser, Ph.D.Dept. of Cell Biology hniederstrasser at cellbiology.wustl.edu Campus Box 8228 Cooper Lab 660 South Euclid Avenue Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO 63110 --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David R. Morrison wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote: > >> And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude >> where we >> try to go out of our way just because there "might" be legal >> implications. >> > > In this spirit, can we have our old slogan back? "Unix software for > your Mac"? (taken down because there might be legal implications...) > The term "Unix" is still a registered trademark :P - -d -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCSEYKPMoaMn4kKR4RAsnhAKCVPRZWLSlLeFHNl5OjC4dbs34cYQCfYjU4 GPxtnvwdwM+HfkeIQOhaiCI= =erJY -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote: Benjamin Reed wrote: And where is Fink incorporated again? That does not matter when it comes to copy right. Not at all. Actually, what matters for copyright is the country in which the item was published. If there are conflicting copyright laws, then the Bern convention (to which virtually all copyright-granting countries agreed) says that the governing law is that of the country in which the item was published. I don't know how to interpret this for something which is "published" on the internet, but for something like fink, indeed the country of incorporation of the publishing entity would appear to be the relevant one. -- Dave --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote: And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude where we try to go out of our way just because there "might" be legal implications. In this spirit, can we have our old slogan back? "Unix software for your Mac"? (taken down because there might be legal implications...) -- Dave --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [Fink-users] Re: gnome-python2-py23
On 28 Mar 2005, at 04:36, Jeremy Higgs wrote: The next package is gnome-python (2.4.2), which, because it depends on GNOME, has a mass of dependencies. I've been trying to make some sense out of them, but haven't figured out what dependencies should be included, and what versions. Are there any sort of guidelines for what dependencies should be included for a package relying on GNOME (or any part thereof)? For runtime deps, I use the following: /sw/var/logs# cat ~/bin/otool_deps #!/sw/bin/bash # "otool_deps pkgs" yields a comma separated list (possibly empty) (followed by a \n) of the packages # on which the given (installed) pkgs depend according to otool _ excluding the given pkgs themselves. dpkg -L $@ | xargs file | grep 'Mach\-O' | cut -f 1 -d ':' | xargs -r otool -L 2>/dev/null | grep -v ':$' \ | sed -r 's|^[[:space:]]*||g' | cut -f1 -d' ' | sort -u | xargs -r dpkg -S 2>/dev/null | cut -f1 -d':' \ | sort -u | grep -vxF "`tr ' ' '\n'<<<$*`" | xargs | sed 's| |, |g' The output has then still to be completed by the dependencies of all scripts, python-stuff in your case, etc. (Is there nothing available that would list all commands a given _ shell-, or perl- _ script can possibly be called to execute ? ) For BuildDepends, a frequent bet is that a priori one can safely add any -dev pkg whose shlibs are runtime deps. I is also useful to look at at your log-file to know what commands are executed, and what the configure script tests. Then, in the info files of those pkgs, look for comments like "Any pkg that BuildDepends on this one must also.." JF --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Benjamin Reed wrote: > David H. wrote: > >> no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The >> likelyhood >> that we will end up in court because we "violate" the GPL is about 0. >> Not to >> mention that we are not the "active party" in this case. The long >> version on >> this topic is about 2 hours and a dinner worth. > > > As the "PR guy" I'm amazed that that is the only concern you have. :P You know my stance on licensing very well, especially when it comes to the GPL. > > I think bucking the GPL with that kind of attitude is a bad idea. If it > were "the 'system library' thing is a bit murky, I think it could still > be considered such, even though we're installing an updated version in > an alternate location" that's one thing, but if it's "f**k it, let them > try to sue us" that's another thing altogether. > If I had said that, yes indeed. What I meant to express is that we should not waste our time adressing this issue when there are more important things to get done. Let's take the g++ ABI changes for one thing. And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude where we try to go out of our way just because there "might" be legal implications. When it comes down to hard facts, then I am more than willing to change something, do something about a given situation. So please apologise for my lack of emotional detachment when I said what I did. > Is it really that hard to set things that want openssl097 to Restrictive > until we can get them either building against the system libcrypto or > updated to use GNUTLS? (Or confirmed to have a compatible license?) > >> Yes, but not with European. > > > And where is Fink incorporated again? > That does not matter when it comes to copy right. Not at all. >> Sorry, but that is downright wrong. As long as I do nto sign my right >> of sole >> use and enjoyment over to Fink Developer Network, the copyright as >> well as the >> "licensing" remains in my hands. Of course Fink may choose to reject >> my patch >> when its licensing does not fit into a scheme we choose, but as long >> as that >> not happens, that patch is mine to deal with and it is licensed as I >> find fit. >> That is why all my patches would be licensed as BSD for example. > > > I agree here. I can't imagine there's such thing as "implied" copyright > assignment just by uploading. There is not. Just as the copyright is always bound to the countries copyright where the "work has been finished, or created". > Copyright is always the creator's unless > specifically notified. I doubt it will be much of a big deal to contact > all maintainers and ask them for consent to consider their .info files > to be released under the GPL, and to put a notice up that all future > submissions will be the same. > Actually I would very much enjoy it if we had a choice here between BSD ad GPL. - -d -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCSB4FPMoaMn4kKR4RAsfxAKCKhKC0cVwiCjN7GV1xckPPk2ATZQCdEyqR Lj7s+ahgp3+aNK8Jpax4098= =su8v -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
David H. wrote: no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The likelyhood that we will end up in court because we "violate" the GPL is about 0. Not to mention that we are not the "active party" in this case. The long version on this topic is about 2 hours and a dinner worth. As the "PR guy" I'm amazed that that is the only concern you have. :P I think bucking the GPL with that kind of attitude is a bad idea. If it were "the 'system library' thing is a bit murky, I think it could still be considered such, even though we're installing an updated version in an alternate location" that's one thing, but if it's "f**k it, let them try to sue us" that's another thing altogether. Is it really that hard to set things that want openssl097 to Restrictive until we can get them either building against the system libcrypto or updated to use GNUTLS? (Or confirmed to have a compatible license?) Yes, but not with European. And where is Fink incorporated again? Sorry, but that is downright wrong. As long as I do nto sign my right of sole use and enjoyment over to Fink Developer Network, the copyright as well as the "licensing" remains in my hands. Of course Fink may choose to reject my patch when its licensing does not fit into a scheme we choose, but as long as that not happens, that patch is mine to deal with and it is licensed as I find fit. That is why all my patches would be licensed as BSD for example. I agree here. I can't imagine there's such thing as "implied" copyright assignment just by uploading. Copyright is always the creator's unless specifically notified. I doubt it will be much of a big deal to contact all maintainers and ask them for consent to consider their .info files to be released under the GPL, and to put a notice up that all future submissions will be the same. --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Macks wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 04:48:04PM -0800, Trevor Harmon wrote: > >>On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:22 AM, David H. wrote: >> >>>Yes, ignoring this bullshit licensing issue all together. Four >>>highly paid, very well known and rather well respected lawyers have >>>told me, seperately, that we should exactly do that. >> >>I assume you're joking about the lawyer bit, no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The likelyhood that we will end up in court because we "violate" the GPL is about 0. Not to mention that we are not the "active party" in this case. The long version on this topic is about 2 hours and a dinner worth. >>but if I understand your >>point correctly, I disagree. We shouldn't take licensing issues >>lightly. It would be hypocritical to ignore licensing for .info files >>while at the same time expecting everyone to respect the license for >>Fink itself. There are enough GPL violations going on already >>(http://gpl-violations.org/) without setting bad examples. > > > /me nods > > In this case the GPL does not good. It is a pain in our ass requiring us to take measures which influence the way we setup our infrastructure and the like. That is nowhere near being fesable. >>Furthermore, although I do not have four highly paid lawyers at my >>disposal, I believe the law says that only the copyright holder -- that >>is, the author of the .info file -- can choose what license his work is >>distributed under. The Fink community cannot choose for him. > > > This is in agreement with other US copyright-law "executive summaries" > I've read. > Yes, but not with European. > In practice here, .info submissions go via SourceForge, which is > slathered with notices that it is for "open source" software > development only, and Fink is distributed under GPL. Especially by > that latter point, it appears that anyone contributing a file to be > part of fink would be placing that file under GPL as well. > Sorry, but that is downright wrong. As long as I do nto sign my right of sole use and enjoyment over to Fink Developer Network, the copyright as well as the "licensing" remains in my hands. Of course Fink may choose to reject my patch when its licensing does not fit into a scheme we choose, but as long as that not happens, that patch is mine to deal with and it is licensed as I find fit. That is why all my patches would be licensed as BSD for example. - -d > dan > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCSAGYPMoaMn4kKR4RAheRAJ43To7CSTVsBS++hFxFQOz6PX+XTACgnL3m oFUP0irYxexS6ensghK+tqY= =4iG+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] kdesdk3 stills does not compile
Neil Tiffin wrote: [] /sw/include/subversion-1/svn_sorts.h:26:23: apr_pools.h: No such file or directory With the latest version of svn and kdesdk3 on CVS this should be fixed. -- Martin --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
