27;s (GPL and GPL incompatible Java software)", not "(Kaffe's GPL)
and GPL incompatible Java software".
--
Glenn Maynard
lts pesky licensing issues being found that
ultimately require the attention of people who would rather be hacking,
or keeps a pet snippet of non-free software out of Debian.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:49:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> With the world the way it is, we as a Project have no *choice* but to
> sweat pesky licensing issues.
Complete agreement, of course.
--
Glenn Maynard
some condition" (not just "revokable
at whim", which is obviously non-free), wouldn't this include GPL #4?
I'm not suggesting that the GPL is non-free, or that the proposed
clause in question is free; just that this statement seems overly
broad.
--
Glenn Maynard
e itself.
It's easy to argue that the patent-related terms here do that (or might
with improved phrasing). It's difficult to say whether it outweighs
the restrictions, since the side-effects of the restrictions aren't
obvious to me.
--
Glenn Maynard
cense."
What prevents me, after violating the license, from obtaining a new copy
of the software and using (copying, modifying, distributing) that instead?
I assume it doesn't work that way. I don't really know how it does work,
though.
--
Glenn Maynard
ndecided. I can sympathise both with attempts to find defenses
against patents (of which free software has scarce few), and to do so in
a way that doesn't force others to weaken their own patent defenses.
--
Glenn Maynard
Program (or any work
based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from
the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions."
--
Glenn Maynard
ve a similar requirement for patents that affect the code.
I'm inclined to think of it as "if you contribute code, we want a license
to use it under *both* copyright and patent laws, not just copyright".
I'm undecided about reciprocity for something we don't require to begin
with (patent licenses).
--
Glenn Maynard
ight license to Apache,
and you don't lose patent licenses granted by other Contributors.
--
Glenn Maynard
nt grant (4b) seems to be the key part
of this strategy. Other than the mixing of patent and copyright, it
seems few people have issues with it.
I'm not sure if there's a separate "fight" behind the reciprocity clause
(#5). Is it there as another defense mechanism, or is it there to make
4b more palatable to patent holders?
--
Glenn Maynard
d; this
is clearly the most problematic clause.
--
Glenn Maynard
nflict. A permissive license shouldn't
add any new problems, at least.
(For what it's worth, I doubt most people using the GPL have thought all
that much about its consequences and effects, at least from my experience
of discussing those effects with people ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
gardless. ("Don't use this
software to make bombs" is GPL-incompatible, even if you don't happen to
be using it to make bombs.)
Could you link to the thread you're referencing?
--
Glenn Maynard
e, I no longer trust the FSF's conception of
"free" (eg. "similar in spirit") to my own software, so I'm not
comfortable with the upgrade clause, and not using the upgrade clause
will cause big problems down the road, so I'm starting to avoid the GPL
for my own work.
--
Glenn Maynard
license.
(Copylefts tend to have "no additional restrictions" clauses, so
they have a tendency to be incompatible with each other. It's another
reason I'm tending to like copylefts less these days: they lead to a lot
of license incompatibility, which results in code rewritin
in the license serves to protect the JasPer
> Contributors (e.g., from lawsuits claiming contributory infringement or
> something similar).
Does such a thing as contributory infringement exist for patents? I've
only heard of that particular evil in relation to copyright.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 21:25, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > I've a number of documents that say "References to "object code" and
>
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:28:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-10-01 01:16:29 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>"I consider the preferred form for modifying this program"
> >which is exactly the form of my examples: "I consi
edistribute it (as an "indirect distributor") without agreeing to anything
while requiring Debian to sign something to do the same thing.
--
Glenn Maynard
d by the
choice of venue? If not, it's GPL-incompatible. How does "sublicenseability"
help here?
"Sublicensing" is an uncommon practice in free software licenses, so we
(debian-legal) don't have a very good understanding of what it is, how
it works, and why it's used. Any input you can provide would be helpful.
--
Glenn Maynard
cause in order to create that package,
you need a non-free compiler. The fact that you can also compile the
sources with a free compiler is irrelevant; non-free tools are still
required to create the package actually in main. Policy doesn't say
"you must be be able to build a package similar to the one in main using
tools in main"; it says "the package in main must be buildable with
tools in main".
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
> > upload the result to main, because in order to create that package
biguous. Good case in point, the m68k
I hope we all agree that the spirit is what matters; people who ignore
the spirit and word-lawyer the letter are people to ignore.
--
Glenn Maynard
kind-of similar
package using free tools, but the one we're giving you can only be built
with non-free tools" is acceptable.
--
Glenn Maynard
ce entirely secret, and distribute my program in binary form only,
> with a very restrictive license. The gcc license does not contaminate
> the resultant binary (unless, of course, I put gcc code in my program).
> Similarly, the ecc license should not prevent compiling GPL'd code. If
> it did, ecc would be unsuitable for any purpose, period.
This doesn't seem relevant.
--
Glenn Maynard
gcc code to suit his own
> needs, but did not, as the GPL allows him to do, distribute either the
> source to his modifications or a binary built from his modified source?
This is unacceptable, for the same reasons; nobody else can make a stable
update to the package.
--
Glenn Maynard
were built on a vmware
> virtual machine, the end-user would have to accept the vmware license,
> or that the package would have to go into contrib.
This, on the other hand, is entirely bogus. Building in a VM doesn't
change the output; building with a different compiler certainly does.
--
Glenn Maynard
d forward this to the FSF; they would probably be interested
in trying to have the misinformation being spread on this page corrected
(or having a note inserted that the "GPL" here is not their GPL, but I doubt
that's actually the case--unless the author of this page is deliberately
trying to spread confusion). Spreading false information about the GPL
does significant damage to Free Software.
--
Glenn Maynard
dly misleading. It doesn't matter much to me if it
can be interpreted in a true way, since the only thing I really care about
here is the spread of confusion about the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:39:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Still haven't subscribed, but I'm reading the archives periodically.
>
> It's mandatory, you know. It's just easier to manage...
Huh? Subscribing to debian-legal isn't mandatory.
--
Glenn Maynard
two upstream
authors in a way other than calling one "upstream" and the other "upstream
author"?
--
Glenn Maynard
be doing is: "here's the binary and partial
source; if you want to keep using it after a while, send me $5 and I'll
unlock it for you". This is shareware; "partial source" is the GPL
violation.
--
Glenn Maynard
aining
the text of #277794, or a "/usr/share/dict/phrases-de" containing a
set of two-word phrases? In other words, to what extent are you asking
Debian to expunge this pair of words?
[1] "non-free" in the context of Debian almost always means "non-free
according to the DFSG and Social Contract", or "DFSG-free"; if that's
not what you meant, please qualify it.
--
Glenn Maynard
ake it out!", not "This'll put me in jail, take it out!"
I agree with refusing the former.
--
Glenn Maynard
27;t understand how there's any disagreement in this case: it's clearly
software, covered by the DFSG (or at least the one Debian will be using
soon), it's required (a Depends), and clearly non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
o find it.
Both the driver and the hardware require this block of data to be useful.
This is a clear-cut Depends:.
--
Glenn Maynard
r" and have the driver
work (at least for some hardware), it's main; if I have to first track
down and install some non-free pieces, it's contrib. This "but it's not
the driver that needs it, the driver just gives it to the device!" just
feels like yet more flimsy rationalizing-around-the-social-contract.
--
Glenn Maynard
non-free, but I can
still require it!".
I think your interpretation is a rational one, but I havn't seen an
argument of why it's a better one. It seems clear that this interpretation
would almost no drivers at all, which makes it impractical.
--
Glenn Maynard
ee versions to be
implemented.)
That doesn't really change the fact that drivers that only work after
pointing it at a non-free data block have a non-free dependency, and
belong in contrib, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
uot; (irrelevant here, as long as devices
do exist with the correct version) and "RAM uploaded from the from the driver,
or falling back on ROM" (seems to fall in the EPROM case).
--
Glenn Maynard
who fail badly at backing their
arguments on principle fall back to using Policy as a stick--despite the
fact that the governing document here is the Social Contract, which I should
hope still takes precedence over policy ...
--
Glenn Maynard
re that
stuff runs on.
Now, if you believe that Debian's current interpretation of the SC and
DFSG (ignoring 2004-004) is an illogical one, feel free to pose the
argument to d-project. If you're correct, fixing this would require
another GR to change the SC; it's not something fixable by policy, as
I understand things.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:43:56PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But the functionality of the driver is a function of the functionality
> of the device.
Why do you keep replying without quoting? It's even more annoying than
top-posting.
--
Glenn Maynard
cceptable), so you're the one giving arguments;
I'm among those giving counterarguments. So, unless you have further
arguments, there's nothing more for me to respond to. The SC is very
clear: no non-free requirements--if you want to try to change the SC, go
for it.
--
Glenn Maynard
lied), the client would go in main.
I wonder if there are any real examples we can compare to, instead of this
contrived one.
[1] Michael might assert that the SC doesn't actually allow this. I
don't agree with that claim in the case of hardware, but it might have
some merit applied to remote servers. That's tangental, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
e d-i would still work without it (for many people).
Packages in main can Suggest packages not in main.
--
Glenn Maynard
ut making you download
AIM and stick it somewhere before it works. (My Windows client, Trillian,
does, too.) If they dropped this particular approach, it makes me
wonder why ...
--
Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:33:59PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:33:38AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> That would require certain parts of d-i (and hence certain parts of
> >> main) to
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:36:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:33:59PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> d-i is modular. The module that provided that functionality would be
> >> likely to
the right data to send back. Neither
> gaim-1.0.2 nor Debian seem to provide this: another place where gaim
> effectively requires non-Debian software.
Hmm. This is a strange case, and I'm having trouble fitting it into
any of the above. It feels like a workaround for a blatent copyright
abuse--for example, it could be used against garage door openers[1].
[1] http://www.eff.org/effector/17/32.php#III
--
Glenn Maynard
to the comparison: a
client requiring a non-free piece of data to make use of a server is not
complete without that data, and (going back to the reason for making
this comparison) a driver requiring a non-free piece of firmware to make
use of a piece of hardware is not complete without that piece of firmware.
--
Glenn Maynard
use your device
at all.
> BTW, if everything is software I can't see how that non-free data used
> for authentication is different from a password or SSL certificate used
> for authentication.
This is irrelevant.
--
Glenn Maynard
device with a black-boxed hard drive to store its
stuff would be in the same category.
--
Glenn Maynard
data and send it to
them, *that* is inside Debian--the user's machine needs to have a copy
of that data.
We're beginning to talk in a pretty tight circle, and it doesn't seem like
we're getting any closer to the core of our disagreement.
--
Glenn Maynard
of other versions, derivatives or license
key information is expressly prohibited without explicit written
approval signed by an authorized Linuxant officer.
7. Performance. Actual speeds vary and are often less than the maximum
possible.
--
Glenn Maynard
ite a real
> Linux driver instead.
Someone might write a free driver for Windows, that this wrapper could run.
--
Glenn Maynard
but there's certainly a point
to writing free drivers for Windows.)
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:44:36PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> (if it's even valid, bitmap fonts can't be
> copyrighted in the US)
This doesn't help Debian; I think the "bitmap font copyright" thing
is an isolated strangeness of US law.
--
Glenn Maynard
be using it: it's clearly against the
author's wishes, even if legal. (I don't buy this at all, though.)
--
Glenn Maynard
isn't comparable
to requiring it in advertising (banner ads).
I believe it's still GPL-incompatible. See "The Phorum License, Version
1.2" on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html .
--
Glenn Maynard
by one of the regulars on this
> list.
As was pointed out, go read the archives on the GFDL issue. I don't trust
the FSF when they call something "free" anymore; they've lost their
credibility. I doubt I'm alone. Claiming that d-legal people don't use
their own judgement when evaluating statements from the FSF is completely
baseless.
--
Glenn Maynard
hird time in two days that you've made this flame,
without giving any backing and ignoring evidence to the contrary, makes
you seem an anti-debian-legal zealot.
--
Glenn Maynard
ause. (You can use
a GPL program in Windows, but Microsoft can't include a GPL program
with Windows.)
--
Glenn Maynard
t.
Huh? "unless that component itself accompanies the executable". Debian
can't use the OS exception. (It seems that the OS exception is intended
to allow people to use GPL programs on non-free systems, while not
allowing non-free systems to include GPL programs directly.)
--
Glenn Maynard
2.0. I have
> no idea what 1.2 looked like, but its 3 & 4 may not of been the same as
> version 2.0's.
>
> RMS, your like is outdated on that page.
I'd recommend not linking to these licenses externally. Make a copy of the
license, to avoid problems when the linked file changes unexpectedly.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:23:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Looks like good news for having DVD playing in Debian someday...
Wow. News from the EFF that isn't depressing ...
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:18:40AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Accurate or not, I doubt the author would sue anyone in one of those
> places for using the code.
That doesn't matter. His heirs may.
--
Glenn Maynard
heoretically write
> an Emacs clone using M$ latest crazy EULA as a license, but
> elisp-compatible to GNU Emacs. Anyway, with Python things
> are different, because the license differs.
You actually mean "under a GPL-compatible license", which isn't quite
the same thing.
--
Glenn Maynard
pporters waste time looking for
> alternative sources.
As I recall, lots of them said "on strike", with an obscure ("but click
here for the webpage") link. It was a stupid idea, since lots of people
(myself included) often missed the link and figured the page was simply
offline.
--
Glenn Maynard
project actually doing this.
(I suppose it would be against the FSF's interests to confirm this, since it
loosens the GPL's "hold" somewhat.) If anyone has a competent source on this
as it relates to free software, though, I'd be interested in it.
--
Glenn Maynard
x, if all of the licenses
in their distribution were click-wrap.
--
Glenn Maynard
s, like "send me a
postcard if you use this for more than a month", and licenses that restrict
use in more obscure ways, sometimes without realizing it.
I'm pretty sure there's a strong consensus that all use restrictions are
non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
sgustingly enough. It's
> not legally safe to distribute the license text, so we can't very well
> distribute the software. Blech.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL says you can. I seem to
recall there being a conflicting statement elsewhere in the FAQ, but I can't
find it now.
--
Glenn Maynard
reamble", and the second says "if you use our license and call
it the 'GNU GPL' you must include the preemable". That would mean that you
can, in fact, remove the preamble, as long as you also rename the license
(to, say, the "LAFGPL").
Not a very well-written FAQ entry.
--
Glenn Maynard
E, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
> GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE
> OR
> INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR
> DATA
> BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A
> FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH
> HOLDER
> OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE READING THIS PART.
This license appears GPL-incompatible; I believe any functional modification
of the GPL produces a GPL-incompatible license (differing viral licenses don't
get along with one another), unless there's a conversion clause.
I suspect software using this license can't be linked against LGPL software,
either. The only reason the LGPL is GPL-compatible is the its conversion
clause (LGPL #3), so linking LGPL software to "LAFGPL" software would be in
violation of the LAFGPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
hat was recommended in the previous thread: ask the upstream authors to
dual license under the GPL, just like Trolltech did.
--
Glenn Maynard
able to call their software "GPL" without
actually using the GPL.
Luckily, XFS makes ReiserFS irrelevant. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
wish for legal protection
> against forks, it's going to be hard.
These goals are completely incompatible.
> I have proposed to him to consider creating a license of his own,
> which would basically allow everything except the incoporation of
> the code into another project with the same goals as libcwd. We'll
> see what comes.
This would be DFSG-unfree.
--
Glenn Maynard
course; I think only
an extremely very well-reputed DD could hope to have any success in a GR
modifying the DFSG, and I'm not a DD at all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
are only slightly
> changed, and the structure is identical. So it doesn't really satisfy the
> requirements given here. :-(
Did you not read the rest of the thread before replying? :)
--
Glenn Maynard
I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
--
Glenn Maynard
ourt finds that a condition was unenforcable, and lacking a
clause like GPL#7, would the individual clause or the entire license be
considered invalid? If the latter, licenses with unenforcable clauses should
probably be considered non-free, as the license could be terminated as a
result.
--
Glenn Maynard
n't violate DFSG.
Violating the spirit of the DFSG *is* violating the DFSG. Please don't insist
that a set of guidelines be read as a set of strict rules. A lot of people
try to do that, and it simply doesn't work.
--
Glenn Maynard
er, then his opinion seems to directly contradict Eben Moglen's:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
--
Glenn Maynard
nel developers
(not being one myself).
--
Glenn Maynard
to the people being sued for copyright
infringement.
--
Glenn Maynard
about
> that prospect.
Uh, but Debian (and everyone else distributing Debian) *is* the offender,
being the ones potentially violating the GPL by distributing GPL-licensed
software without complete source.
(Again, I'm not certain whether there's a GPL problem here or not, but
the answer is certainly relevant to Debian.)
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down
> Debian immediately.
Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible
license violation.
--
Glenn Maynard
the issue yet.
I don't think it's safe to be dismissing possible GPL violations so readily.
--
Glenn Maynard
have to make the
source available to them, too. It doesn't say that you have to make it
available to anyone else. If I'm on a desert island and I want to
give my modified binary to my island friend, the GPL doesn't prevent
that.
I'm not entirely sure how the desert island test applies to this part of
the GFDL.
--
Glenn Maynard
er.
I'll also reiterate the other problem: even if we believe that the entire
Linux kernel developer body agrees (which may be the case, though I doubt
it), I'm sure there's a lot of code in the kernel pulled from other GPL
projects, whose copyright holders aren't kernel developers at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
ceptance
doesn't have to be click-wrap, but I don't see how agreeing to several
hundred contracts can be made convenient without being dangerous.)
--
Glenn Maynard
f making this clarification for all of the
code in question, then Debian must not pretend otherwise, and I see no
evidence that he is.
--
Glenn Maynard
egin with:
so I can make reasonable evaluations of them before spending time coding.
It doesn't look like either of the two licenses are redistributable, even
in non-free. Neither gives permission to redistribute, though it seems
that they may have intended to in the second license.
--
Glenn Maynard
ion, nobody actually wants to reverse it.
Just to be clear, did you mean to include yourself in that? From the
above, it seems that you, at least, do believe that documentation should
be under a different set of guidelines than the DFSG.
--
Glenn Maynard
sn't seem controversial to
> me, since I don't believe that any interesting or convincing arguments
> have been made that documentation is not software. I suspect we'll disagree
> on this, of course. :)
>
> --
> Glenn Maynard
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Glenn Maynard
eek advice from the
list of how best to approach that. (I don't have any recommendations,
myself; it's not something I'm particularly good at.)
--
Glenn Maynard
trudge through foreign code,
but it seems self-evident to me that this happens.)
Neither John, Linus, nor the kernel developer body as a whole have the
right to be "clarifying" the license of my code. If I had personally
sent it off to Linus to be included, it might be different, but I, the
copyright holder, never interacted with any of those people.
--
Glenn Maynard
ed a
> clarification the best we can do is get it from Linus.
As I said, I don't accept this line of reasoning; if "the best we can do"
to satisfy legal requirements is not enough, then it's not enough. We're
arguing in circles, now, so unless somebody else has so
701 - 800 of 1145 matches
Mail list logo
