Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
Ben Finney wrote: But it's also plausible that the author of that statement is referring to a license *from government* specific to design, construction, operation or maintenance of nuclear facilities, and nothing to do with copyright: the government does not license the recipient for these uses. That seems quite implausible to me. The only license that is described anywhere in the document is the software license that Sun might (or might not) be granting to a third party. The US government could perhaps, if they wanted, prohibit some software from being used in nuclear facilities and such, but the US government has no power to grant or not grant software licenses for software owned by Sun. If the clause really had something to do with the US government, it would be identified as such, and if it had to do with the US government controlling what is used in US nuclear facilities, it would have specifically stated that, rather than being completely open-ended about where the nuclear facilities are located. (The US generally wouldn't have jurisdiction over what software was used in nuclear facilities in other countries, e.g., France.) If the US government somehow was involved in licensing software for use in nuclear facilities, we would see this clause in all sorts of software, rather than only in software licensed by Sun, and by other parties that have copied the Sun license. In any case, regardless of the intent, it is clear that it does state that the software is not licensed for use in nuclear facilities. It fails to meet the DFSG and OSD regardless of whether the clause was written for Sun's benefit or at the behest of the US government. Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50557008.6030...@brouhaha.com
Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
* Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com [120915 20:38]: 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 facility. Steve Langasek wrote: This is a standard No warranty clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US. It is not a restriction placed on the use of the software in nuclear facilities by the copyright holder, it 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. While that may[*] have been the intent, it specifically states that the software is not [...] licensed. It is explicitly stating that Sun was not granting the BSD license, or any other license, to those in that field of endeavor. Since the license is the only thing that grants permission to make copies of the software, those in that field of endeavor are not permitted to make copies. If they are explicitly stating they were not granting a license, why did they grant a license just in the lines before that? There is no restriction in the whole license text w.r.t. this field of endeavor. Only a statement that one should know that the software is not designed, licensed or intended for use there. Native speakers might correct me, but according to my dictionary to be licensed is the term for a governmental approval, while I have not yet seen this term used for copyright licenses (and this license does not even uses the word license for copyright issues at all, but speaks of permissions). The combination with designed and intended also makes your interpretation hard to defend, because if copyright law was already forbidding the usage, what does it matter whether it was designed or intended for that case? Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120916075836.gb13...@client.brlink.eu
Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote: * Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com [120915 20:38]: 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 facility. Steve Langasek wrote: This is a standard No warranty clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US. It is not a restriction placed on the use of the software in nuclear facilities by the copyright holder, it 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. While that may[*] have been the intent, it specifically states that the software is not [...] licensed. It is explicitly stating that Sun was not granting the BSD license, or any other license, to those in that field of endeavor. Since the license is the only thing that grants permission to make copies of the software, those in that field of endeavor are not permitted to make copies. If they are explicitly stating they were not granting a license, why did they grant a license just in the lines before that? There is no restriction in the whole license text w.r.t. this field of endeavor. Only a statement that one should know that the software is not designed, licensed or intended for use there. And right there is where we stop. The software is not licensed for use in a nuclear facility. You have no grant of license in that context and may not use the software in that context. Any use of the software in a nuclear facility is forbidden as you are not licensed to use it there. This is discrimination against a field of endeavor (work in a nuclear facility) and is not DFSG Free. As for copyrights being granted by licenses, that's the very foundation of the GPL. General Public License. It is a grant of copyright as long as you adhere to the license terms. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnyuc0r1soestzxpj5ywya+eh0iqyj5pudcdq6ot0v9s...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#687693: ca-certificates: Cacert License is missing
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:35:09 -0500 Raphael Geissert wrote: Hi everyone, Hello Raphael, mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion. Thanks for asking. Please note that you may receive multiple and possibly different opinions from debian-legal regulars. I am one of them, but what follows is just my own personal opinion. On Saturday 15 September 2012 03:15:10 mejiko wrote: [...] ca-certificates packeages included Cacert Root certificates. This certificates licensed under Cacert Root Distribution License (RDL). [...] http://www.cacert.org/policy/RootDistributionLicense.php For future reference, here's a full quote of the license text, obtained with $ w3m -cols 72 -dump http://www.cacert.org/policy/RootDistributionLicense.php Name: RDL COD14 Status: DRAFT p20100710 RDL Status - DRAFT Editor: Mark Lipscombe ┌─┐ │Root Distribution License│ │ │ │1. Terms │ │ │ │CAcert Inc means CAcert Incorporated, a non-profit association │ │incorporated in New South Wales, Australia. │ │CAcert Community Agreement means the agreement entered into by each│ │person wishing to RELY. │ │Member means a natural or legal person who has agreed to the CAcert│ │Community Agreement. │ │Certificate means any certificate or like device to which CAcert │ │Inc's digital signature has been affixed.│ │CAcert Root Certificates means any certificate issued by CAcert Inc│ │to itself for the purposes of signing further CAcert Roots or for│ │signing certificates of Members. │ │RELY means the human act in taking on a risk or liability on the │ │basis of the claim(s) bound within a certificate issued by CAcert. │ │Embedded means a certificate that is contained within a software │ │application or hardware system, when and only when, that software│ │application or system is distributed in binary form only.│ │ │ │2. Copyright │ │ │ │CAcert Root Certificates are Copyright CAcert Incorporated. All │ │rights reserved. │ │ │ │3. License │ │ │ │You may copy and distribute CAcert Root Certificates only in │ │accordance with this license.│ │ │ │CAcert Inc grants you a free, non-exclusive license to copy and │ │distribute CAcert Root Certificates in any medium, with or without │ │modification, provided that the following conditions are met:│ │ │ │ • Redistributions of Embedded CAcert Root Certificates must take │ │reasonable steps to inform the recipient of the disclaimer in│ │section 4 or reproduce this license and copyright notice in full │ │in the documentation provided with the distribution. │ │ • Redistributions in all other forms must reproduce this license │ │and copyright notice in full.│ │ │ │4. Disclaimer│ │ │ │THE CACERT ROOT CERTIFICATES ARE PROVIDED AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR │ │IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED │ │WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE │ │ARE DISCLAIMED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. IN NO EVENT │ │SHALL CACERT INC, ITS MEMBERS, AGENTS, SUBSIDIARIES OR RELATED │ │PARTIES BE LIABLE TO THE LICENSEE OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DIRECT, │ │INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES │ │(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR │ │SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) │ │HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, │ │STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING│ │IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THESE
Re: Bug#687693: ca-certificates: Cacert License is missing
* Raphael Geissert: TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca- certificates, Fedora says it is non-free. What do the others think about it? If we take CA certificate license statements seriously, we have a problem because they often contain unacceptable requirements: prohibition of redistribution, mandatory updates to the software we ship, constraints on how our programs behave, indemnification, agremeent to arbitration, etc. It's probably best if we treat certificates as factual information not subject to copyright. But the trademark side is even more messy because CA certificates sometimes embed trademarks which have nothing to do whatsoever with the private key owner du jour. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87haqyjmzw@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.
Chris wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:44:17AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: INAL, so someone feel free to call me wrong. Comments inline. I'll call me wrong: 09:31 Ganneff svuorela: name the/a organisation, not your name. org: freedom fighters, inc. done. :) 09:31 Ganneff it doesnt want YOUR name, it wants A name for changes. i dont see a problem in that. just make it consistent Comments retracted. I'd not be so quick to retract those comments! I agree it fails the dissident test. One is not able to contribute anonymously. You must identify the organization you are a part of (and what is an organization, anyway?). And what do you do if you're not part of an organization? Are you required to identify yourself? If one must identify themselves a part of freedom fighters, inc. they open themselves to their changes being traced back to them along with a flag on them saying, I'm a freedom fighter. If they are not part of an organization, but other freedom fighter organizations are a part of the project, they become tied to those (perhaps, in the eyes of the government) through their explicit association with the project. I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test because there is no way for someone to contribute anonymously, and, on the face of it, no way to contribute without being a member of an organization, a term the license fails to define. Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the dissident test. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs. -- Mike Andrews -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1tddub-0002zu...@mail.einval.com
Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:25:21 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote: [...] Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the dissident test. This has been asked a number of times on debian-legal and has already been answered: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00215.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00263.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00179.html Please let's try and avoid running in circles... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp894dmhXHAS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com writes: Ben Finney wrote: But it's also plausible that the author of that statement is referring to a license *from government* specific to design, construction, operation or maintenance of nuclear facilities, and nothing to do with copyright: the government does not license the recipient for these uses. That seems quite implausible to me. The only license that is described anywhere in the document is the software license that Sun might (or might not) be granting to a third party. Right. If some other license is meant by this clause, it is needlessly confusing to mix it in with the terms of the copyright license. So I strongly advise the prospective maintainer to seek from the copyright holder an improved license text which clears up this confusion. -- \ “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O | `\ Lord, make my enemies ridiculous!’ And God granted it.” | _o__)—Voltaire | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87pq5mm73z@benfinney.id.au
Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.
Francesco Poli wrote: Please let's try and avoid running in circles... *rotfl* -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs. -- Mike Andrews -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1tdhia-ab...@mail.einval.com
Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
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 facility. Steve Langasek wrote: This is a standard No warranty clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US. It is not a restriction placed on the use of the software in nuclear facilities by the copyright holder, it 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. While that may[*] have been the intent, it specifically states that the software is not [...] licensed. It is explicitly stating that Sun was not granting the BSD license, or any other license, to those in that field of endeavor. No, you are misinterpreting what is meant here by licensed. I also dispute the idea that there is a standard 'No warranty' clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US. The (admittedly limited) research I have done suggests that this clause is simply something that Sun's lawyers invented, and was subsequently copied by quite a few otherwise open-source projects, mostly those using Java. It's possible that Sun was the originator of the clause in question. There's enough free software licensed by Sun or using license texts derived from theirs that it's by this point a de facto standard. And it has been recognized as free by Debian, because the intended meaning is the one I mentioned above. Since the 1960s it has been common for manufacturers of electronic components and equipment to disclaim liability for use of their products in life-critical or safety-critical systems, but as far as I can tell there wasn't any widespread use of an anti-nuclear clause. Not until you started to see the intersection between corporate lawyers familiar with these liability issues with safety-critical systems, and free software. [*] I don't think this has anything to do with whether the US government has approved the software; that is up to the government and not Sun. Rather I think the purpose was to disclaim liability for any nuclear attack or meltdown. Either way, though, it is just speculation. The purpose is to disclaim liability by making users aware that it does not have a license from the US government. This is why licensed is juxtaposed with designed and intended instead of being a direct statement that you are not *allowed* to use it in a nuclear facility. On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:22:00AM -0600, Eric Smith wrote: If the clause really had something to do with the US government, it would be identified as such, and if it had to do with the US government controlling what is used in US nuclear facilities, it would have specifically stated that, rather than being completely open-ended about where the nuclear facilities are located. (The US generally wouldn't have jurisdiction over what software was used in nuclear facilities in other countries, e.g., France.) If the US government somehow was involved in licensing software for use in nuclear facilities, we would see this clause in all sorts of software, rather than only in software licensed by Sun, and by other parties that have copied the Sun license. In any case, regardless of the intent, it is clear that it does state that the software is not licensed for use in nuclear facilities. It fails to meet the DFSG and OSD regardless of whether the clause was written for Sun's benefit or at the behest of the US government. No. At this point you are willfully misinterpreting the text despite having it explained to you what this clause means, apparently from some belief that the text of a license would never be written in a way that's unclear to a layman. -- 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...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.
Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : Chris wrote: I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the dissident test. Hi Steve, I think that the dissident test and others are indirectly mentionned to everyone who wants to join Debian: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_pp1.txt?revision=1246view=markup 60 PH7. How do you check if a license is DFSG-compatible? 61 62 PH8. There are a few tests for this purpose, based on (not really) common 63 situations. Explain them to me and point out which common problems can 64 be discovered by them. I do not find these tests particularly useful, but as long as they are promoted this way, we are likely to see people using them on this lit. If you think they create more noise than signal, perhaps you or others can consider asking for a change to the NM templates via a bug reported to nm.debian.org. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120917001842.ga6...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Bug#687693: ca-certificates: Cacert License is missing
Le Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:35:09PM -0500, Raphael Geissert a écrit : Hi everyone, mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion. On Saturday 15 September 2012 03:15:10 mejiko wrote: [...] ca-certificates packeages included Cacert Root certificates. This certificates licensed under Cacert Root Distribution License (RDL). [...] http://www.cacert.org/policy/RootDistributionLicense.php https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-policy/2012-02/msg00031.html https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CACert_Root_Distribution_License TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca- certificates, Fedora says it is non-free. What do the others think about it? To me, it doesn't just seem to be a (re-)distribution issue. Rather, the need for an additional agreement with CAcert. Hello Raphael, could it be a very strangely phrased disclaimer of warranty ? That A lets B rely on A, is similar to A warrants to B. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120917002736.gc6...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
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 nuclear facility. This is a standard No warranty clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US. It is not a restriction placed on the use of the software in nuclear facilities by the copyright holder, it is a CYA statement that the software has not been approved *by the government regulatory agencies* for use in nuclear facilities in the US. Stuff like this has puzzled me. I would think that in order to use this software, you must do something which would have the effect of disadvantaging yourself in a lawsuit wouldn't be considered free. A statement you must acknowledge X means that any user who wants to claim not-X in court is forced to drop that claim in order to use the software. If this is a statement that the software hasn't been approved, shouldn't it say you acknowledge that we *claim* X (thus not depriving the user of the opportunity to challenge X in court), and not you acknowledge X? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.00.1209161747470.17...@oxygen.rahul.net
