Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Hello, I have a few questions regarding public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright files: 1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... right? Would it be better to replace this with: # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. ? 2. With the following stanza in debian/copyright (DEP-5): Files: examples/* License: public-domain I get two lintian warnings, the first of which being missing-field-in-dep5-copyright for the Copyright field IIRC, and the second one being 'missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright public-domain'. I can silence the first warning by adding: Copyright: These files have been put in the public domain. to the stanza (is this correct?). However, I am reluctant to write more things in the License field (or to add a stand-alone license paragraph) only to make lintian happy, since the code is just in the public domain with no restrictions whatsoever. Quoting https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/: When the License field in a paragraph has the short name public-domain, the remaining lines of the field /must/ explain exactly what exemption the corresponding files for that paragraph have from default copyright restrictions. but there are no particular exemptions applying here AFAICT... What do you suggest? Thanks in advance for your answers, please Cc me as I am not subscribed. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wq93q5yk@frougon.crabdance.com
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Le Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:11AM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit : 1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... right? Would it be better to replace this with: # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. ? 2. With the following stanza in debian/copyright (DEP-5): Files: examples/* License: public-domain I get two lintian warnings, the first of which being missing-field-in-dep5-copyright for the Copyright field IIRC, and the second one being 'missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright public-domain'. Dear Florent, for the first point, please do not modify the upstream copyright statements unless you have the permission from the authors: it is more likely to create new confusions than to clarify the situation. For the entry in the machine-readable copyright file, since the information available suggests that the authors claim a copyright, I would just consider that “This program is in the public domain.” is the license of the file: Files: examples/* Copyright: (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 author A (C) 2000 author B License: says-public-domain This program is in the public domain. Not elegant, but accurate. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med 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: https://lists.debian.org/20140916100412.gc2...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes: 1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... right? Right. The quoted statement is self-contradictory. It asserts copyright, and gives no grounds for the “public domain” claim. It also fails to grant license for any of the DFSG freedoms. So by strict interpretation of the statement in view of rigid application of copyright law, the work is effectively non-free software. Would it be better to replace this with: # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. ? Even in the absence of a copyright statement, copyright still obtains in any Berne Convention signatory jurisdiction. Merely stating that a work is in the public domain does not clearly make it so. Since it's nearly impossible to remove copyright in a work under most jurisdictions, the best course is to write the copyright statement to clearly attribute the copyright holders and years of publication. What is needed, for this work to clearly be free software, is for the copyright holders to explicitly grant license in the work, saying unambiguously what freedoms all recipients have. Since the apparent intent is to: * Show attribution of the copyright holders. * Permit every recipient a very free license. I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 URL:http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0 is a good one IMO. Thanks in advance for your answers, please Cc me as I am not subscribed. Done. I hope this helps. -- \ “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than | `\ it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” —George Bernard Shaw | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/851trbx4tv@benfinney.id.au
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 URL:http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0 is a good one IMO. If they really want public domain, though, then CC-0 is good [1]. (However, it isn't OSI approved because it explicitly does not grant patent/trademark rights.) [1] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/541821d1.5040...@bitmessage.ch
Simple doubt about section to use
Hi, I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). From upstream[1]: --- Lutris is an open source gaming platform for GNU/Linux. It makes gaming on Linux easier by taking care of managing, installing and providing optimal settings for games. Lutris does not sell games, you have to provide your own copy of the games unless they are Open Source or Freeware. The games can be installed anywhere you want on your system, the tool does not impose anything. --- My doubt is if is a main or contrib program. I think in main, because lutris can survive running DFSG games only. However, we have the possibility to install proprietary and commercial games too. So, what is the better section for lutris? Thanks a lot in advance. Regards, Eriberto [1] https://github.com/lutris/lutris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJd5F2c9xZsy+nKUYAjKsz4OZE__JaFtkCNNQ=yo8m0...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright): Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes: 1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... right? Right. The quoted statement is self-contradictory. It asserts copyright, and gives no grounds for the “public domain” claim. It also fails to grant license for any of the DFSG freedoms. So by strict interpretation of the statement in view of rigid application of copyright law, the work is effectively non-free software. This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author. In this case the author's intent is clear: the author wants to disclaim the monopolies granted by copyright law. The statement is to be read as a permissive licence. So no-one is in any danger of being sued by the (purported) copyrightholder. Obviously it would be better if the authors fixed this technical defect, but it has no significant practical consequences. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21528.26679.572646.86...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Simple doubt about section to use
Eriberto Mota writes (Simple doubt about section to use): I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). From upstream[1]: This seems like a package manager. My doubt is if is a main or contrib program. I think in main, because lutris can survive running DFSG games only. However, we have the possibility to install proprietary and commercial games too. So, what is the better section for lutris? At DC14 we had a conversation about the fact that at the moment it is not possible for a user to say only once, when installing Debian, that they only want free software. I think the best situation would be if lutris could be made to offer for installation only DFSG games, unless contrib or non-free is enabled. If you can do that then lutris could be in main, IMO. Perhaps you could do this with a lutris-nonfree-library package in contrib. I assume that lutris is already written not to connect to any game library without permission. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21528.26970.448660.11...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Simple doubt about section to use
Thanks Ian! Pierre, you need think about what to do. Cheers, Eriberto 2014-09-16 13:46 GMT-03:00 Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk: At DC14 we had a conversation about the fact that at the moment it is not possible for a user to say only once, when installing Debian, that they only want free software. I think the best situation would be if lutris could be made to offer for installation only DFSG games, unless contrib or non-free is enabled. If you can do that then lutris could be in main, IMO. Perhaps you could do this with a lutris-nonfree-library package in contrib. I assume that lutris is already written not to connect to any game library without permission. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cap+dxjc-jojkxcdawac43yjeo3dhtf0cr8vh237ddazegiz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Simple doubt about section to use
2014-09-16 14:53 GMT-03:00 Pierre Rudloff cont...@rudloff.pro: Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games' licence. So I guess we should add it to contrib ? I think that it is the better way. Eriberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cap+dxje2036rsdskp8kjbnjeiusemjzpmybv2kde5d8qoxw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Simple doubt about section to use
Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games' licence. So I guess we should add it to contrib ? Regards, Le 16/09/2014 19:18, Eriberto a écrit : Thanks Ian! Pierre, you need think about what to do. Cheers, Eriberto 2014-09-16 13:46 GMT-03:00 Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk: At DC14 we had a conversation about the fact that at the moment it is not possible for a user to say only once, when installing Debian, that they only want free software. I think the best situation would be if lutris could be made to offer for installation only DFSG games, unless contrib or non-free is enabled. If you can do that then lutris could be in main, IMO. Perhaps you could do this with a lutris-nonfree-library package in contrib. I assume that lutris is already written not to connect to any game library without permission. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54187902.8030...@rudloff.pro
Re: Simple doubt about section to use
Pierre Rudloff writes (Re: Simple doubt about section to use): Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games' licence. So I guess we should add it to contrib ? I think so, I'm afraid. Maybe there is part of it that doesn't involve the library feature, or in other ways download non-free stuff, which could go in main. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21528.32940.724621.494...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author. We would hope so, yes. They also take into account the intent of the *current* copyright holder. Courts are also not infallible guardians of the public interest; a hostile future copyright holder can wield the lack of a clear grant of license to cause a lot more trouble for recipients than would be the case if the license grant were clear. We have ample instances of that having been done in the past, enough to be cautious in treating ambiguous and contradictory copyright statements. In this case the author's intent is clear: the author wants to disclaim the monopolies granted by copyright law. The statement is to be read as a permissive licence. So no-one is in any danger of being sued by the (purported) copyrightholder. On this I can't see why you modify “copyright holder”. You think this is an effective divestment of copyright in the work? In all Berne Convention jurisdictions where Debian recipients will operate? I don't. It seems clear to me that “This work is in the public domain” is *not* an effective way to cause a work to have no copyright holder. That work is still restricted under copyright law, despite the intent of that statement. Obviously it would be better if the authors fixed this technical defect I'm glad that's a point of agreement. -- \“I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any | `\ view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and | _o__) opposite view.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85sijruz5j@benfinney.id.au
Re: Simple doubt about section to use
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:10:53AM -0300, Eriberto Mota wrote: Hi, I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). [...] My doubt is if is a main or contrib program. I think in main, because lutris can survive running DFSG games only. However, we have the possibility to install proprietary and commercial games too. So, what is the better section for lutris? I agree. And I strongly disagree with Ian's suggestion to demote it to contrib. As I understand it, lutris is usable with software in main via the ScummVM runner and the two ScummVM games in main. And lutris only installs stuff if the user explicitly asks it to. So the possibility to work with non-DSFG content is not a problem. Unless Debian also decides to move to contrib: - Any compiler which does not check for DSFG-freeness of the code it compiles. - Any emulator which does not likewise check the thing emulated. - Any web browser which does not decline to show non-DSFG-free content. Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Debian project. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140916202934.GA6550@noname
