Message-
> From: Steve Langasek
> Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 3:07 PM
> To: Muhammad Yaaseen
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: hard linking libboost copyright files
>
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 05:38:57AM +, Muhammad Yaaseen wrote:
>
>
cy/ch-docs.html%20section%2012.5>
> we are not allowed to create symbolic links. the doubt I have is whether
> I can hardlink these files and reduce the memory utilization.
This isn't really a legal question; as a practical matter, it is not
possible to ship cross-package hardlinks
uded a hash of Ubuntu's
shim, or Ubuntu's signing key). dbx updates should be carefully managed in
conjunction with updates to the bootloader itself, which the tighter
coupling of a directly-managed native package gives us. I think similar
reasoning would apply for Debian.
--
Steve Langase
ing to an interface is not "adaptation" of a copyrighted work. Your
interpretation of copyright law is inconsistent with how Debian has operated
for over 20 years, and I do not expect Debian to cede this position without
lawyers getting involved, or for Debian to be willing to distribu
Wookey
> Copyright 2016 Gianfranco Costamagna
> Copyright 2016 Gianfranco Costamagna
> Copyright 2016 Jeremy Bicha
> Copyright 2016 Jeremy Bicha
> Copyright 2017 Adrian Bunk
> Copyright 2017 Jeremy Bicha
> Copyright 2017 Steve Langasek
> Copyright 2018 Fab
Debian FTP site is this:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/
This site is used to distribute the Debian operating system, which is Free
Software. No private data is distributed from this site.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
source code
as a condition of distributing in its territory. In the case of free
software, the country is not imposing a requirement to make source
available; it is only enforcing the *software license's* requirement to make
source available.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lev
a clarification from upstream, I would take the conservative approach
of treating this as a GPL2 (not GPL2+) work for debian/copyright.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and
t do we do?”
Stating the origin of the code is not a trademark infringement.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.
er with libraries they've been written to use, the
exception you describe gives people permission to use the GPL software from
GPL-incompatible language runtimes. I don't think anyone who licensed a
library under the GPL (mainly the FSF) would have any reason to grant such
an exception
ty on the part of the
distributor or the user.
We should not a priori block software from inclusion in Debian just because
it has been reverse-engineered in apparent contravention of an EULA. It's
for the courts to determine if such a work infringes copyright of the
original.
--
Steve La
se claims. If it is not
copyrightable, then you are not bound by any purported license - and
therefore it cannot fail the DFSG.
This is entirely separate from the question of whether they should be
included in the ca-certificates package, or enabled by default.
--
Steve Langasek
to
the ftp masters, the DPL, and the project through a GR.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga..
late people's human
rights. Even if we had volunteers to work on this, the Debian project
should refuse their efforts and steer clear of this issue.
See also <https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/03/msg00145.html>.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enoug
n issue with distributing the bundled work if you distribute
it as a binary.
So this makes the package undistributable for Debian, but not necessarily
for upstream.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, an
author, not a licensing term, but IANAL.
That's pretty unambiguously a polite request, not part of the license
requirements.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Devel
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:10:58PM +0100, Victor Seva wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> Thanks for your quick reply.
> 2013/11/12 Steve Langasek :
> > If, however, you are enabling the tls plugin *by default* - for
> > instance, by providing a metapackage that pulls the two separate pac
fectively, you as the maintainers
are creating the combined work which links against OpenSSL. You can then no
longer rely on it being a plugin to keep it at arm's length, and you would
need an OpenSSL exception on /all/ of the code.
Hope that helps,
--
Steve Langasek
look like?
> And what good would it do? 1) read literally means that if software
> infringes on the claims of a patent debian would have nothing to
> do with it, consistant license be damned.
> It is all very confusing.
> And 3 means I can't even ask anyone about this confusion.
SE7_27Dec2011.pdf
As Walter notes, this appears to be the license for the TCK, which is not
part of the OpenJDK that we ship. The TCK is not freely redistributable at
all.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:08:17AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:29:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > I think that this discussion is going completely out of proportions.
> > Francesco always makes sure that his replies contain an informative
&
this list; we should therefore not allow him to act as
part of Debian's face.
> If Debian bans Francesco from this list, I will fee very ashamed of us.
If Debian fails to ban Francesco from this list, the list should be
disbanded.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:04:20AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Steve Langasek dijo [Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:13:30PM -0700]:
> So, my request is for you _not_ to ban him, but for Francesco to tone
> down. Yes, this might re-escalate later on, and things might be
> re-evaluated. But t
use of the list for espousing your
*personal opinion* on questions that have been settled *for years* from the
project's perspective is actively harmful and must stop.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on,
inations of
works. You using the list as a soapbox for your opinions about licenses
that you think Debian *shouldn't* accept is an abuse of the list.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
t that *requiring* people to give back was a
higher price than we were willing to accept.
> Even here http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
As that URL suggests, this is not an official statement of the Debian
project, it's a document maintained by one individual Debian develo
d not have to
choose between complying with the license and being safe from their
government; they should be *free* to exercise their rights on the code in
Debian, even when they aren't free in other aspects of their lives that we
don't have control over.
--
Steve Langase
. Does Japan not have its own process for
ECCN determinations under the Wassenaar Arrangement?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
operators will never see this license).
So you can have any use restrictions you want in the license on a package in
non-free (provided you can find a DD willing to upload it), but you *must*
have a license for distribution that's separate from any EULA.
--
Steve Langasek G
's exceedingly unlikely that there is any copyright holder to step
forward, it seems reasonable to me to assume that these works are in the
public domain without presenting a pedigree that proves that they are.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
De
components are all linked into a
single binary, /usr/bin/pan. If so, I don't think there's any grounds for
claiming that this is "mere aggregation". Linking object files together
into an executable binary is absolutely in scope for the kinds of things
that the GPL is designed
d by copyright, they have failed to understand and we must
assume the work is under copyright with no license grant.
Hope that helps,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu D
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 06:34:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Sita Sings the Blues goes public domain (CC0):
> http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/
> ... but not DFSG-free.
In what way is CC-0 not dfsg-free?
--
Steve
here and started considering debian/copyright itself the
requirement, and that's a *bug*.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
fault in Debian, may have
restrictions on use. It is recommended to read the specific license terms
of non-free software you install prior to use.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it o
ugs.debian.org/377109 for the full history here.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubu
as a single paragraph without being inaccurate, you don't need separate
paragraphs.
(E.g., if the source package contains source for two different programs, and
the sources are freely but incompatibly licensed, don't just say Files: *
License: License-1 and License-2 since that doesn
permission.
In the event that any provision of this license is held to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this license remain in full force
and effect.
Hope that helps,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
as no legal force. Your proposal to remove it from the package without
specific legal guidance to the contrary is a gross overreaction.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
eone wanted to package data distributed under this
license, they could sanitize that data by proactively removing any
occurrences of the Licensor's name first *except* for the credits; once
done, this degenerates to the previous case. But it's obviously a hassle to
do that.
All in all
does not allow licenses to discriminate against fields of
endeavour, and that absolutely includes illegal ones. The law is sometimes
wrong; it's important that users of Debian not be exposed to double jeopardy
as a result, including in cases of civil disobedience.
--
Steve Langasek
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 05:56:18PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
> >>* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
> >>* maintenance of any
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:39:23PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
> I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D:
> >* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
> >* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
> >* maintenance of any nuclear facil
is a CYA statement that the software
has not been approved *by the government regulatory agencies* for use in
nuclear facilities in the US.
Warranty disclaimers are fine under the DFSG.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
tant enough to
you that you want to track down the EULA and verify that the embedded code
isn't freely distributable/modifiable, that's your prerogative; but I stand
by my statement that *Debian* should not block on such an investigation.
--
Steve Langasek
ts that the
license on their work is $foo, they know what they're talking about even
when portions are copyright other people/entities. There's no reason to
deviate from this sensible default just because it's known that one of the
entities listed releases other software under propr
ge is in fact the correct one, with no other license attaching to this
output.
If you find an authoritative license statement to the contrary, *then* we
should worry about whether this is non-redistributable.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Develop
ting that you changed the files and the date of any change.
You know, the one in the GPLv2?
Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move t
the license quoted above requires you to change the *Debian*
package name. It only requires that you change the *java* package name.
You should use whatever name for the Debian package makes the most sense,
but change the name of the Java package to something other than edu.hws.
HTH,
--
Steve Lan
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:00:24PM -0400, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012, at 09:53 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > In the GPLv3 only case, I think there's also still room to maneuver;
> > even though the translation is initially a mechanical translation, once
&g
is intended to be exhaustive, is not recognized as having a copyright, but
an anthology of selected short stories has an editor's copyright in addition
to the copyrights of the individual authors.
So when you choose what bits to feed into the machine and how to assemble
the output, the ne
ew key, that's going to be up to the individual signers to confirm that the
name on the UID matches the name they know for you.
Hope that helps,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to s
to the
package must be signed off by the mark holder. The one real-world example
we have to date clearly involved terms that were not acceptable. But I
believe a trademark license that left Debian free to apply security fixes
and fixes for bugs with the integration with the OS withou
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:32:18PM +1200, Dan Wallis wrote:
> 2011/6/24 Steve Langasek :
> > However, in reading the bug log my understanding is the upstream author's
> > position is that the GPL does not require dynamically-linked libraries to be
> > distributed under
his is a clarification of the intended
license, which I believe is sufficient for Debian's purposes. If there are
other copyright holders, we would need to get similar clarification of
intent, or an OpenSSL linking exception, from each of them.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
come annoyed by such inquiries (and
many of them will not bother replying, I'm sure). So what's the point of
spending more effort than we already do gathering names of copyright holders
if this won't significantly improve our confidence in the correctness of the
license statements?
--
ts under
copyright apply.
As long as the license of your software is similar, where the EULA claims
are trivially circumventable by the maintainer, this should also be fine.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set i
Debian packaging
infringes trademark. You should ignore the license terms unless you're
doing something with the name *aside from* packaging that could infringe the
trademark.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:57:22PM +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> Joerg Schilling
You must be joking. We're looking for legal expertise, not reality
distortion fields.
> or LaForge too may be good sources of information.
Who?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a
se has never been tested in court TTBOMK so I have nothing to point to
saying that it's good.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
eams for trademark permission, as in this case, erode
Debian's overall position on trademarks vs. package and file names. Please
don't do this. Far from "playing it safe" legally, you're instead putting
at risk the work of all those other maintainers who have put countless hours
how up with a logo that reproduces your exact
*application* of the brush, angle for angle down to the pixel, it stretches
credulity to claim that this occurred to them independently.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
r you need a trademark license lies in statute and
precedent. You should consult an attorney if you have doubts about whether
you're doing something that infringes a trademark. But common sense goes a
long way here...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
D
ng code into our archive so that
they can sue us later for copyright infringement is remote - and the sort of
hypothetical that we shouldn't be basing our policies around.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to
whether your intended use of the logo is
permitted under the existing Debian license, please consult your legal
counsel. If you wish to request a license exception to use the logo in a
way not permitted by the standing license, please direct such requests to
the Debian Project Leader (lea...
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:19:14PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So long as the upload queue continues to reside in the US, this is true.
> > However, the current ftp team have made several proposals that seem to
> > dis
main solution; I would recommend that
any US-based developers who are concerned about compliance with US export
regs be watchful for future developments.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:53:44PM -0600, Morgan Gangwere wrote:
> On 9/12/2010 8:42 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Simply put, a trademark license, even a restrictive one, has no impact on
> > DFSG compliance because it's unrelated to whether or not you use the
> > so
ademark when using the moodle software is
therefore not an issue for the freeness of the package.
Also, please don't ask trademark holders for permission to package software
under the trademarked name; this only leads to the confused belief that we
*need* such permission to use tra
ipation of
such modifications; and we routinely ship modified versions of source code
using package names which match the upstream trademarks, on the grounds that
package names are not trade but computer interfaces, and are thus also not
trademark infringement.
All this, of course, is entirely sepa
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 08:11:26PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:22:53AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> >> However, it is my opinion that works with unavailable source do not
> >> comply with DFSG#2, regardless of the
grams* must include source code, not arbitrary
non-program works distributed in Debian.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
ve the CC BY (the
copyleft requirement).
Therefore, if CC BY-SA 3.0 is ok, CC BY 3.0 is also ok.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
, lest you find that they try to solve this by editing
their license to address *only* the issue you've mentioned.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
7;t use the /law/ as an excuse
for not complying with the /license/. The language leaves open the
possibility that you might choose to continue distributing a work in
compliance with the GPL but in violation of the law. :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Deb
er the speed limit?
What I think is that the possibility that they *could* sue means such a
license fails the DFSG.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the wo
.
> > This is a choice of venue clause.
> > Choice of venue clauses are controversial and have been discussed to
> > death in the past on debian-legal: my personal opinion is that they
> > fail to meet the DFSG.
> A fight that has been lost many times... choice of venue
In the OpenSSL case, we had definite information that the license conflict
would not be resolved. If it came to light that this recent license
conflict was deliberate on the part of the FSF, I would certainly support
handling it in a consistent manner.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Gi
also not on the line personally for any
legal liability on Canonical's side and as a result this may not be very
persuasive, but it's my firm belief that this is the right standard for the
Debian ftpmasters to use as well.)
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long e
plications in Debian that can be (and are) used for
codesigning.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...
, since the sentence, as you say, is not
> meaningful in a license and thus has no effect? :-)
That only means that it's exceedingly difficult to *comply* with the
license, not that the requirement is not part of the license.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long e
#x27;s no such thing as a unilateral contract anywhere else either. A
license is not a contract.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
o have to be treated like patent restricted formats. Mono
> just happens to be one.
Mono is treated like patent-restricted formats: we don't consider the
existence of a software patent claim to be a sufficient reason to remove
software from main.
--
Steve Langasek
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:42:46PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:37:56 +0200 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:33:52AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > > Disclaimers, of course: IANADD, TINASOTODP (and IANAL, TINLA).
> &g
he reason he needs to add all these
acronyms is because his posts are an inappropriate use of this mailing list
and not productive, and stop posting.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the w
n.org/trademark and email lea...@debian.org
Not that I think we want people not formally affiliated with the Debian
project registering domains using the name "debian" in any case, but I'm
pretty sure we don't have a registered trademark in Iran and suspect we
would find it ha
alid.
The Creative Commons "CC0" license is an effective way to do this:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I ca
d has never been a matter of serious
contention in Debian.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debi
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:33:38AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [090328 23:46]:
> > And this has all been discussed before.
> Obviously not often enough for you.
Oh, I'd much rather be doing something other than discussing this, but as
long as pe
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 08:55:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > The PDF needs to come with sources to build the corresponding PDF
> > > *using only free software in Debian*,
ome with sources to build the corresponding PDF
> *using only free software in Debian*, or it's not acceptable for
> Debian.
> The same needs to be true of any binary in Debian, AIUI.
The DFSG does not say this. Source is only mandatory for programs under the
DFSG as writte
because the wording is unambiguously free
to anyone familiar with ordinary legal language - not that it's
unambiguously non-free, as Ben Finney seems to maintain. Greg Harris has it
right, and Ben Finney as usual is coming up with absurd constructivist
non-free readings of licenses.
--
S
rictions on modification), or
replace it with one that works better for the users.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
e and without fee is hereby
>> granted,
> I find that wording rather ambiguous, in my mind it could mean any of
> the following:
> * You may [foo] for any purpose, without paying a fee
> * You may [foo] for any purpose, as long as you do so without fee
> Does anyone el
arly not a Trojan horse, and if the holder of the original
copyright did flip out and decide to sue, Debian and anyone receiving the
code from Debian would be pretty far down on the list of defendants. We
should nevertheless recognize that this is a possibility, and make an
informed decision about
ou can't give Americans legal advice
over the Internet and expect not to be held to American standards for the
same.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world
committing torts
against US citizens doesn't mean the tort does not occur. Jurisdiction and
enforceability are two different questions.
For comparison with other European countries: it's been discussed on this
list in the past (in connection with choice of venue clauses) that French
.
There's also enough cause for doubt here that it's warranted to continue
investigating so we can be sure about the real license status; hence the bug
should not be closed outright, IMHO.
(The lenny-ignore tag is also left in place, reflecting the release team's
int
have been a reject email sent by the ftpmasters in response to
this upload, if it was rejected out of the NEW queue. Perhaps it was sent
to your sponsor?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
uld file a bug to Debian's package about this)
Why?
IANAL and TINLA, though I have had the pleasure of responding to a trademark
C&D on behalf of the upstream of a free software game clone.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
1 - 100 of 745 matches
Mail list logo
