Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 17:43, David R. Morrison wrote: > I looked at glut, and I guess there is some ambiguity in the sentence > "The programs are not in the > public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing > fees." >From /usr/share/doc/libglut3/copyright on my Debian system: Regarding the right to modify and distribute this library: From: Mark Kilgard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Bug#131997: GLUT license Anthony, > Would it be possible for you to just make it absolutely clear that > everyone's allowed to use, copy, and modify (and distribute their > modifications) of libglut? > > Just quoting the above and replying "Yes, that's fine" or similar > would be okay. Yes, that's fine. [If you think Fink is strict with licenses, you've never seen Debian] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Dienstag, April 1, 2003, at 03:49 Uhr, Ben Hines wrote: "distribution is allowed without license". To cut things short. I ran this by our lawyers and here is what they said: "This type of license indicates that you may distribute the entity referred to as "program" in any form that it might take. Be it binary or source. There is no implicit mentioning of 'binary distribution is not allowed' and in license agreements that means that you can safely assume that it may be distributed. Licenses are so called "restrictive approach measures" everything which is not explicitly denied is assumed to be legal" There you have it.. - -d - -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCC d+ s: a-- C+ UB P+ L++ E--- W N+ o+++ K w-- O M+ V++ PS PE Y++ PGP t+ 5 X- R+ tv-- b DI D+ G e h+ r++ y++ - --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQE+iVqYiW/Ta/pxHPQRAzMzAJ9qrKNTPW8OmiKZj8iv6ym9yx4gyACgt2Xg tdUrvcRIMqhij+3bQ2Scakg= =ZBjk -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
Am Dienstag, 01.04.03 um 03:49 Uhr schrieb Ben Hines: On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 05:33 PM, Matt Stephenson wrote: On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 11:17 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote: I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing binaries, its just a general statement or maybe I'm being to picky. Many licenses don't mention binaries. I still don't see what is restrictive about this license. What is restricted? So the only other license field we can use is 'OSI-Approved' which quote from our packaging manual "One of OSI's requirements is that free distribution of binaries and sources is allowed." I'm not saying the license is restrictive as such I just don't think it falls under OSI-Approved. It doesn't say that distribution of binaries and sources is not allowed, though. It says "distribution is allowed without license". Uhm, where does it say that? I only see: "The programs are not in the public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing fees." Which is a difference. In fact, the only alternativs I see are: a) Public Domain (which they exclude) b) Some license (if that is the case, they don't mention it), be it OSI complian, restrictive or what c) Nothing - a legal void Right now it seems we are at c), with the exceptions that at least they tell us we can distribute it w/o a licensing fee. Alas, that doesn't actually mean that they grant us the *right* to distribute it. There are quite some software packages which are free to use but you are not allowed to distribute them, for example. So as long as the upstream maintainer leaves us at c), a legal void, we have to assume the worst and treat a package as "Restricted". The best solution in my eyes here would be to contact the glut creators and request a clarification by them. In the meantime, they are not OSI-Approved, because clearly an unknown license or a legal void can't be, not even in "spirit", OSI compliant. Cheers, Max --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 05:33 PM, Matt Stephenson wrote: On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 11:17 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote: I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing binaries, its just a general statement or maybe I'm being to picky. Many licenses don't mention binaries. I still don't see what is restrictive about this license. What is restricted? So the only other license field we can use is 'OSI-Approved' which quote from our packaging manual "One of OSI's requirements is that free distribution of binaries and sources is allowed." I'm not saying the license is restrictive as such I just don't think it falls under OSI-Approved. It doesn't say that distribution of binaries and sources is not allowed, though. It says "distribution is allowed without license". -Ben --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 11:17 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote: I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing binaries, its just a general statement or maybe I'm being to picky. Many licenses don't mention binaries. I still don't see what is restrictive about this license. What is restricted? So the only other license field we can use is 'OSI-Approved' which quote from our packaging manual "One of OSI's requirements is that free distribution of binaries and sources is allowed." I'm not saying the license is restrictive as such I just don't think it falls under OSI-Approved. Matt --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Matt Stephenson wrote: I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing binaries, its just a general statement or maybe I'm being to picky. Many licenses don't mention binaries. I still don't see what is restrictive about this license. What is restricted? -Ben --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
On Monday, Mar 31, 2003, at 11:00 Australia/Sydney, Ben Hines wrote: On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 02:43 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: (Depends on whether it means that people don't have to pay the author a licensing fee, or that distributors are prevented from collecting licensing fees.) Actually, I think that clearly means that they letting you distribute it without needing to licens it from them. 'licensing' implies a permission grant made by the author, not a distributor. So I guess the license should either be "OSI-Approved", or "Restrictive/Distributable". Which one shall we use? What's restrictive about it? I see nothing. I tend towards 'Restrictive/Distributable' because nothing is mentioned specifically in the glut license about distributing binaries, its just a general statement or maybe I'm being to picky. Matt --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 02:43 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: (Depends on whether it means that people don't have to pay the author a licensing fee, or that distributors are prevented from collecting licensing fees.) Actually, I think that clearly means that they letting you distribute it without needing to licens it from them. 'licensing' implies a permission grant made by the author, not a distributor. So I guess the license should either be "OSI-Approved", or "Restrictive/Distributable". Which one shall we use? What's restrictive about it? I see nothing. (This is the only package in the stable tree with no license specified, and I'd like to fix that.) License \Li"cense\ (l[imac]"sens), n 1. Authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act; especially, a formal permission from the proper authorities to perform certain acts or to carry on a certain business, which without such permission would be illegal; a grant of permission; as, a license to preach, to practice medicine, to sell gunpowder or intoxicating liquors. License means permission. -Ben --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
Hi Dave, Must of had a esp moment as I had just drafted an email to you regarding the glut license field, I will add a 'Restrictive/Distributable' licence field to it sometime today as I also have to add a missing 'BuildDependsOnly: True' field to it as well. Matt On Monday, Mar 31, 2003, at 08:43 Australia/Sydney, David R. Morrison wrote: Here is a list of stable packages missing the MD5, there are many other validate warnings too though, here are what I consider the 2 most important of those: Warning: File name should be automake-1.6.3-1.info (automake-1.6.3-2.info) Warning: No license specified. (glut-3.7-3.info) [snip] Matt, I looked at glut, and I guess there is some ambiguity in the sentence "The programs are not in the public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing fees." (Depends on whether it means that people don't have to pay the author a licensing fee, or that distributors are prevented from collecting licensing fees.) So I guess the license should either be "OSI-Approved", or "Restrictive/Distributable". Which one shall we use? (This is the only package in the stable tree with no license specified, and I'd like to fix that.) -- Dave --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)
> Here is a list of stable packages missing the MD5, there are many other > validate warnings too though, here are what I consider the 2 most > important of those: > > Warning: File name should be automake-1.6.3-1.info > (automake-1.6.3-2.info) > Warning: No license specified. (glut-3.7-3.info) [snip] Matt, I looked at glut, and I guess there is some ambiguity in the sentence "The programs are not in the public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing fees." (Depends on whether it means that people don't have to pay the author a licensing fee, or that distributors are prevented from collecting licensing fees.) So I guess the license should either be "OSI-Approved", or "Restrictive/Distributable". Which one shall we use? (This is the only package in the stable tree with no license specified, and I'd like to fix that.) -- Dave --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
