Re: orphaning fetchmail
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:04:15PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: fetchmail is licensed under GPL license. What about conflict between GPL and BSD clauses from openssl? I mean the problem with mutt and ssl. What about lynx-ssl, links-ssl, fetchmail-ssl and others? On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:20:04PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: I know nothing about this issue. Copying to -legal (and trimming Cc: list). A tempting idea: start a project derived from ssleay, and reimplement openssl. -- Raul
Re: orphaning fetchmail
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote: On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:04:15PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: fetchmail is licensed under GPL license. What about conflict between GPL and BSD clauses from openssl? I mean the problem with mutt and ssl. What about lynx-ssl, links-ssl, fetchmail-ssl and others? On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:20:04PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: I know nothing about this issue. Copying to -legal (and trimming Cc: list). A tempting idea: start a project derived from ssleay, and reimplement openssl. I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
plain language disclaimer
Hi all, Has anyone written a plain language disclaimer? It bothers me to see such redundant language on licenses, especially when they must appear in every file. I have a package ready to be distributed with Debian as soon as I sort out the license. Is legalese really a legal necessity, or is it just laziness and conservatism? Does a disclaimer have to be in uppercase? Wouldn't the position at the top of the file, together with a copyright notice and a simple plain language license satisfy the requirement that the disclaimer be clearly visible to the user? Here is the GPL disclaimer: -- BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, Does the free license change the applicability of the law? And if it does, doesn't the fact that the license was provided for free immediately apply even if you don't mention that it was a free license in the disclaimer? THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, Okay. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. Can it possibly be otherwise? So how about: THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING Obviously. THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM X and/or !X == anybody. Since we are talking anybody, then passive voice is perfectly acceptable: THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED AS IS How can you provide something as it isn't? Or might someone interpret TODO and BUGS as promises for future enhancements? WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. any kind includes all possible warranties. either expressed or implied includes all possible warranties. including, but not limited to includes all possible warranties. the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness are implied warranties, and they are already explicitly mentioned. So how about: THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. What happens if someone convinces a judge that there are risks other than the the quality and performance of the program? Plus it is easier to understand. So how about: USE THE PROGRAM AT YOUR OWN RISK. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. I don't want to be liable for other people's legal fees associated with defects in my code, or any other costs not explicitly mentioned. So how about: SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME ALL COSTS. IN NO EVENT Okay. UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW It cannot be otherwise. OR AGREED TO IN WRITING Obviously WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, That's anybody who can legally provide the program to you since only the copyright holders and people who accept the terms and conditions of the GPL have permission to distribute the program. Can a license apply when someone illegally distributes the program? So how about: WILL ANYBODY BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, Okay. INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES general+special == any incidental+consequential == any So how about: INCLUDING ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM Okay, but including any damages ... doesn't add any conditions to the already mentioned damages. (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), The phrase including but not limited to doesn't add any conditions EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. Isn't SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY the aforementioned YOU? And isn't this as good a place as any to advise the user of the possibility of such damages. So how about even though you are advised of the possibility of such damages. So how about: IN NO EVENT WILL ANYBODY BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. --- So the GPL disclaimer can be reduced to: THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. USE THE PROGRAM AT YOUR OWN RISK. SHOULD THE PROGRAM
Re: plain language disclaimer
Paul Kienzle [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is clearly redundant and awkward, so how about: This program is provided as is without warranty of any kind. Use it at your own risk. Nah, that's way too snappy. How about: 11. FOR REASONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FACT THAT WATER FREEZES AT A HIGHER TEMPERATURE THAN ETHYL ALCOHOL, THE FACT THAT THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, AND THE FACT (OR POSSIBLY NON-FACT) THAT IN 1983 THE BRITISH FISHING INDUSTRY LANDED 412 MILLION METRIC TONNES OF SPRATS, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, PHYSICAL LAW (INLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO OHM'S LAW, SPECIAL RELATIVITY, GENERAL RELATIVITY AND SOD'S LAW), ORDINARY LOGIC WITH OR WITHOUT THE AXIOM OF CHOICE, EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING, WHICH MAY INCLUDE ELECTRONIC WRITING WHERE PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS LICENCE, OR ANY OTHER LICENCE, OR ANY THING OTHER THAN A LICENCE, PROVIDE THE PROGRAM AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WRITTEN OR UNWRITTEN, IN RHYMING OR PLAIN VERSE, OR, INDEED, IN PROSE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR OR INPARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY, SMELL AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, MEDICAL COSTS, LEGAL COSTS, PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT, VALUE-ADDED OR OTHER SALES TAX, WHERE APPLICABLE, REPAIR, INLUDED BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE REPLACEMENT OF ANY FIXTURES OR FITTINGS, PIPES OR CONDUITS, WIRES, CABLES OR CONNECTORS, OR CORRECTION. THIS LICENCE MAY CONTAINS TRACES OF NUT.
Re: plain language disclaimer
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Paul Kienzle wrote: BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, Does the free license change the applicability of the law? And if it does, doesn't the fact that the license was provided for free immediately apply even if you don't mention that it was a free license in the disclaimer? In Germany for example, you have to warrent for whatever you buy. Only when you make someone an present, then you can only be hold resposible for severe errors or errors you make although you should have known to create an error with it. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, Okay. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. Can it possibly be otherwise? Any licence saying: there is no warrenty is automatically void in this point in most countries. Therefor it says: There is so less waarenty as possible. But this is also void in Germany for example. AS IS How can you provide something as it isn't? Or might someone interpret TODO and BUGS as promises for future enhancements? It could be provided as program bundled with life-long garanty to enhance the code or bla... WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. any kind includes all possible warranties. either expressed or implied includes all possible warranties. including, but not limited to includes all possible warranties. the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness are implied warranties, and they are already explicitly mentioned. So how about: THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. I think this is for the anglo-british and american kind of read laws. There this ANY KIND could not be sufficient. UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW It cannot be otherwise. This is clause like above, so void in countries like germany. INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES general+special == any incidental+consequential == any So how about: INCLUDING ANY DAMAGES As said above, the aglo-british-american reading of law could be of an other opinion. (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), The phrase including but not limited to doesn't add any conditions It states, that the term before it is meant to the things behind it, but is not only this. So how about: IN NO EVENT WILL ANYBODY BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. I think, the copyright-holder (speak: you and not the persons using the program) are meant, so this is something else. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: orphaning fetchmail
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote: I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property. -- Raul
Re: orphaning fetchmail
Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw. Basically they take it as an embrace and extend move by the FSF. It's rather ironic coming from me, but can't we all just forget the BSD/GPL bullshit for once and just deal with extension of free software, no matter what the license? If you want to propose projects to rewrite software, why waste the effort by rewriting what's already free when there's LOADS of non-free software out there that could use a political rewrite? In fact, I'd say that THERE is the worthwhile project: rewrite non-free into DFSG free licenses. Debian is committed to extension of DFSG free software, OpenSSL is under the BSDL, so it's already DFSG free--no extension is gained by rewriting it, so therefore it's outside the scope of the commitment. On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote: I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: orphaning fetchmail
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote: I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property. I hear that you can only deprogram a Randroid with a shotgun blast to the face. I hear that Branden wants to walk funny... -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: orphaning fetchmail
Hi, On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote: Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw. Basically they take it as an embrace and extend move by the FSF. It's rather ironic coming from me, but can't we all just forget the BSD/GPL bullshit for once and just deal with extension of free software, no matter what the license? If you want to propose projects to rewrite software, why waste the effort by rewriting what's already free when there's LOADS of non-free software out there that could use a political rewrite? In fact, I'd say that THERE is the worthwhile project: rewrite non-free into DFSG free licenses. Debian is committed to extension of DFSG free software, OpenSSL is under the BSDL, so it's already DFSG free--no extension is gained by rewriting it, so therefore it's outside the scope of the commitment. I think most people agree that OpenSSL is Free Software. But it is not GPL compatible. So if you want a derived work based on some GPLed code (e.g. fetchmail, mutt) and OpenSSL then you cannot distribute the complete work it has added restrictions not in the GPL. I believe the clauses that are a problem in this case are: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this *software must display the following acknowledgment: *This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project *for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/) * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called OpenSSL *nor may OpenSSL appear in their names without prior written *permission of the OpenSSL Project. and * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: *This product includes cryptographic software written by * Eric Young ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library *being used are not cryptographic related :-). and maybe * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or * derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be * copied and put under another distribution licence * [including the GNU Public Licence.] So what we need is not so really a GPLed version but at least a GPL compatible version. (So a 'modern' BSD licensed library would not be a problem.) Cheers, Mark
Re: orphaning fetchmail
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:21:56PM +1300, Carey Evans wrote: I believe openssl inherits most of its GPL-incompatible clauses from ssleay. For example, I have an old copy of fcrypt.c, which is part of Eric Young's libdes, which includes: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: *This product includes cryptographic software written by * Eric Young ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library *being used are not cryptographic related :-). That's a variant on the BSD licensing clause, which is annoying, but not legally valid. which is the BSD advertising clause that is incompatible with the GPL. There's also: * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or * derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be * copied and put under another distribution licence * [including the GNU Public Licence.] I didn't notice the explicit ssleay can't be used with the GPL -- yeah, this means it would have to be re-implemented from scratch (perhaps grabbing some code from analogous but differently licensed products). What I was noticing was the added distribution terms for OpenSSL. -- Raul
Re: orphaning fetchmail
begin John Galt quotation: I know that serious consideration of anything over one line (hence your prediliction for the one-line dismissal of anyone who you have had disagreements with in the past) is beyond your skills, but please don't remind me of it Perhaps your time would be better spent inventing a new type of steel, or perhaps starting a railroad. -- CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and ad-hominem personal attacks Pigdog.Org - The Online Handbook for Bad People of the Future You are not entitled to your opinions.
