ACL - The Ada Community License
(please CC responses to me thanks; sorry if this has already been raised; I searched the archives but found nothing) Any thoughts on this license? Is it DFSG? Is it compatable with the GPL? I suspect it is OK, but want to confirm it here. Thanks. The Ada Community License Copyright(C) 1997 David G. Weller Permission to redistribute in unmodified form is granted, all other rights reserved. This is a modification of the Perl Artistic License, (c)1989-1991, Larry Wall Preamble The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which the Ada library may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some semblance of artistic control over its development, while giving Ada users the right to use and distribute the Ada library in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications. Definitions: Refers to the collection of Ada source files distributed by the Library Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created through textual modification. Refers to such a library if it has Standard Version not been modified, or has been modified as specified below. Copyright Holder Is whoever is named in the copyright or copyrights for the Ada library. You Is you, if you're thinking about copying or distributing this library. Is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and Reasonable Copying so on. (You will not be required to Fee justify it to the Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large as a market that must bear the fee.) Means that no fee is charged for the item itself, though there may be fees Freely Available involved in handling the item. It also means that recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they received it. Provisions: 1 You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the Standard Version of this Ada library without restriction, provided that you duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. 2 You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A library modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version. 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: a) Place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site such as The Public Ada Library, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Ada library. b) Use the modified Ada library only within your corporation or organization. c) Rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version. d) Make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder. 4 You may distribute the programs of this Ada library in object code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following: a) Distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files, together with instructions (in the
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (please CC responses to me thanks; sorry if this has already been raised; I searched the archives but found nothing) Any thoughts on this license? Is it DFSG? Yes, I think so. Is it compatable with the GPL? Maybe not. Section 7 says 7 System-level subroutines supplied by you and linked into this Ada library in order to emulate the functionality defined by this Ada library shall not be considered part of this Ada library, but are the equivalent of input as in Paragraph 6, provided these subroutines do not change the library in any way that would cause it to fail the regression tests for the library. This is similar to the operating system exception, except that the vendor of the operating system can't do anything that breaks Ada. For example, the Sun libc has pow() defined. The Ada library might define it's own pow() for small integers that does not give bit-wise identical results to the Sun pow(). If the Sun one is used, it might cause regression tests to fail, meaning that Sun could not distribute the Ada library. The GPL only restricts Sun from distributing libc and the Ada library together. This would count as an additional restriction, and thus not compatible with the GPL. If you have any influence, changing this part to read more like the GPL would be enough to make it compatible. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
Or, I accept rather that sometimes a naming restriction is compatible, and sometimes its not. If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind. I don't think that position is sustainable. If you decide that it is OK for package A to have a renaming rule, then that decision should hold, even if the authors of a jillion other packages choose the same distribution option for their packages. That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to have a renaming rule you can't change your mind just because the licence proves popular. If you decide that it is not OK for the first package to have a renaming rule you have to find a very creative way of interpreting the DFSG to back up that decision since the guidelines explictly allow this under certain circimstances. David _ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL exception for the OpenSSL library
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 02:53:19PM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00454.html: I would then include the entire OpenSSL license in the file COPYING.OpenSSL in the hpoj package. Mark, please forward the LICENSE file distributed with the OpenSSL version that Debian provides, so I can make sure it's truly identical to what I think it is. Hopefully they don't change the wording of their license on a regular basis. :-) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00665.html: Could we also pseudo-uniquely identify COPYING.OpenSSL with an MD5 checksum? Please note that one line of the OpenSSL license *is* in fact changed on a regular basis: * Copyright (c) 1998-2002 The OpenSSL Project. All rights reserved. MD5 checksums should be predictable, though. I believe that the copyright statement is not a part of the license. The copyright statement is merely informational text, in countries that are Berne convention signatories, is it not? I have been under the impression that the license is the stuff following the copyright statement which outlines your rights and restrictions _in_ _addition_ to standard copyright. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL exception for the OpenSSL library
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 03:33:49PM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: I believe that the copyright statement is not a part of the license. The copyright statement is merely informational text, in countries that are Berne convention signatories, is it not? I have been under the impression that the license is the stuff following the copyright statement which outlines your rights and restrictions _in_ _addition_ to standard copyright. Probably you are right, the problem is just that MD5 does not know about this :-) Well, perhaps you don't have to include the copyright statement in COPYING.OpenSSL. Then you'd still be reproducing the license, no? Can someone find out if this is the case? Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:49:14PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: If you have any influence, changing this part to read more like the GPL would be enough to make it compatible. I'm curious. This license seems to have other restrictions over the GPL. For example, selling the library itself is forbidden, and the written offer for source allowed by the GPL isn't allowed by this license (= forbidden). Aren't these also incompatibilities? Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of reasonable copying fee is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want for support. The written offer for source code is an allowable option under 3(a) of the Ada license. It say that you must make your modifications ... Freely Available. Freely Available, as defined in the license, can include shipping and handling. So again, it doesn't seem to preclude any option offered by the GPL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: The written offer for source code is an allowable option under 3(a) of the Ada license. It say that you must make your modifications ... Freely Available. Freely Available, as defined in the license, can include shipping and handling. So again, it doesn't seem to preclude any option offered by the GPL. It's unclear to me what falls under 3 and what falls under 4: it seems as if 3 is for all modification and distribution--it mentions executables--and 4 is for distribution of binaries only. However, 4 seems more restrictive than 3; it doesn't have the freely available option. So, I'm a bit confused. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: The written offer for source code is an allowable option under 3(a) of the Ada license. It say that you must make your modifications ... Freely Available. Freely Available, as defined in the license, can include shipping and handling. So again, it doesn't seem to preclude any option offered by the GPL. It's unclear to me what falls under 3 and what falls under 4: it seems as if 3 is for all modification and distribution--it mentions executables--and 4 is for distribution of binaries only. However, 4 seems more restrictive than 3; it doesn't have the freely available option. So, I'm a bit confused. Hmm. I see your point. I think the license is unclear. I'm not sure whether the restrictions in Section 4 are in addition to the restrictions in Section 3, or rather Section 4 is an additional option for Section 3. It could be argued either way. Spelling it out would be a good thing. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to have a renaming rule you can't change your mind just because the licence proves popular. If you decide that it is not OK for the first package to have a renaming rule you have to find a very creative way of interpreting the DFSG to back up that decision since the guidelines explictly allow this under certain circimstances. No, you've misunderstood. If I have to rename a jillion things to make one change to the program, then that's not reasonable. If I have to rename only one thing to make only one change, then that's reasonable.
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2 You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A library modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version. 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works into the Public Domain.
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the library is not forbidden. Really? You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself.
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:21:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works into the Public Domain. Does it? 3a says you must either put it into the public domain *or* otherwise make them Freely Available; it's extremely loose about that definition. Probably too loose; it's not really clear to me what's allowed and what's not. If I distribute binaries to someone, and include a written offer (GPL-style), is that satisfying 3a? It's freely available to the person I'm giving binaries to, but nobody else. (I'd suspect that if this didn't satisfy 3a, it means they expect you to make the changes publically available if you distribute binaries at all; this would violate the desert-island scenario, which might make it non-free.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of reasonable copying fee is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want for support. This is Debian's interpretation of reasonable copying fee, and why that restriction doesn't cause it to be DFSG-unfree. However, is this also the FSF's interpretation for GPL compatibility? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Font license recommendation
At 01.14 +0200 2002-07-29, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Some document formats include programmatic fonts in the document. This is indeed the custom for PS and PDF, yes. Furthermore I'm afraid this is how the font would normally be used. I think here the question is whether the combination is font-program plus text is a single program or not. This comes up if the license you want is the GPL. It would be bizarre in the extreme, it seems to me, to regard the combination as a single program (at least, assuming you don't massively intertwine them). I think this would be a matter of mere aggregation. PDF files are mainly data, but it quite reasonable to think of a PS file as a program (a program that tells the printer to draw the thing you want to print). In fact, PS files are often more program-like than PS Type 1 fonts are! The problem with GPL'ing is that anyone who recieves a PS file using a GPL'ed font could then claim that the PS file in its entirety must be GPL'ed and thus request to get the (.tex or similar) sources for the PS file, since these would be the preferred form for making modifications. However, note that if the document format distributes font-programs in something other than source, and you want to use the GPL, you need to make sure the source gets sent along with the font-program somehow. (Perhaps the document format has some kind of comment syntax where you could stash it.) It could in principle be included as comments, but that would look truly bizarre. Another reason not to use GPL, then! At 15.25 +0200 2002-07-29, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that you consider the inclusion of fonts to be the same as linking of libraries. Then LGPL might be what you need. The LGPL's rule would mean that it would be forbidden to distribute compound works linked in such a way that the font cannot be changed independently of the rest of the contents. In some jurisdiction this might prevent the production of hardcopy documents using the typeface. This sounds strange. Isn't the hardcopy rather output from the program? It would be better to give an explicit permission to use the font freely in documents. The case is so special that it is not advisable to rely on analogies with software. You mean I could say something like This font is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License ... Furthermore the font can be included in documents without any additional restriction. ? I suspect the wording in that furthermore clause could be tricky however. Verbatim copying is too restrictive, since fonts are commonly subsetted as part of the inclusion process. With such an explicit permission, the GPL would seem to be suitable - the metafont (or whatever) source could play the role of .. well, source, and bitmapped renderings or translations into write-only formats (postscript type 1??) would count as binaries. The latter of these, yes. Bitmaps are generally deprecated these days. Of course, depending on one's personal preferences, a BSD style license could do the job, too. BSD style licenses doesn't seem to require that the source is made available. That it should be available was my main reason not to simply choose public domain. Lars Hellström
Votos de Boas Férias
LOJADOTELEMOVEL.COM 31 de Julho 2002 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com ][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][ BOAS FÉRIAS ][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][ --PROTEJA O SEU TELEMÓVEL Na praia ou no campo, este verão proteja o seu telemóvel das areias da praia , do pó e das quedas. Para uma melhor protecção do seu telemóvel, dispomos de uma variada selecção de capas de silicone transparente que se ajustam ao seu telemóvel tornando-o quase resistente às quedas, areias e salpicos de água. Capas em silicone transparente disponiveis para: Alcatel 511 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_7_512products_id=3762SESSAO= Alcatel 311 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_7_570products_id=3761SESSAO= Nokia 3210 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_9_156products_id=3030SESSAO= Nokia 3310/30 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_9_168products_id=2623SESSAO= Nokia 5210 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_9_551products_id=3764SESSAO= Nokia 6210 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_9_160products_id=2626SESSAO= Nokia 6310 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_9_550products_id=3082SESSAO= Nokia 8210 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_9_163products_id=2625SESSAO= Nokia 8310 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_9_533products_id=3763SESSAO= Siemens C35 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_14_202products_id=3766SESSAO= Siemens S35 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_14_204products_id=3767SESSAO= Siemens S45 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_14_526products_id=3801SESSAO= Siemens ME 45 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_14_548products_id=3768SESSAO= --CARCAÇAS Todas as semanas adiccionamos novos modelos à maior coleção de capas (carcaças) em Portugal: Esta semana: · Carcaça mutante Nokia 3310/330 a imitar o Nokia 7210 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?products_id=3785 · Cápsulas estanques de diversas cores para o Nokia 5210 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/default.php3?cPath=509_585SESSAO= · Carcaças completas com temas exclusivos para o Motorola T191 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/default.php3?cPath=509_615SESSAO= · Carcaça mais vendida A carcaça mutante para transformar completamente o seu velho Nokia 8210 no topo de gama 8850, sem dispender muito dinheiro. http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=509_513products_id=3393SESSAO= --ACESSÓRIOS Temos já disponíveis os modernos auriculares stereo para os Nokias. De design moderno estes auriculares dispoem de suporte para para cada um dos auscultadores para quando não estão a ser utilizados. Veja em: http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=3_9_168products_id=3754SESSAO= Não perca o lançamento dos novos auriculares PILOTE com design muito atractivo e ideal para quem passa muito tempo ao telemóvel ou para utilizar enquanto conduz. Veja em: http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=5products_id=3798SESSAO= --WIRELESS/BLUETOOTH Conversor de porta série USB http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?products_id=3778 Novo auricular Bluetooth da SonyEricsson (compativel com todos os telemóveis equipados com bluetooth) http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?products_id=3773 --ORGANIZERS É o PDA mais indicados pelos especialistas. O Ericsson MC218 é o potente PSION MX5 e agora com upgrade para ligações GPRS com o seu telemóvel. A internet está agora no seu bolso. http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=573_584_586products_id=3523SESSAO= --DIVERSOS Caixa de ferramenta de precisão para telemóveis Siemens http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=5products_id=3799SESSAO= Conjunto de ferramentas de precisão para o Motorola série V http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=5products_id=3800SESSAO= --CAMPANHA DE VERÃO Bolsas em pele genuína da prestigiada marca Pierre Cardin. Na compre de uma bolsa horizontal, oferecemos durante este Verão uma útil bolsa desportiva para levar o seu telemóvel para a Praia. http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?cPath=5products_id=3739SESSAO= Está a receber este e-mail porque se inscreveu na LOJADOTELEMOVEL.com, indicando o seu endereço de email. Para deixar de receber as nossas mensagens da LOJADOTELEMOVEL.com escreva o seu email no campo indicado em: http://www.lojadotelemovel.com PS: Não faça reply a esta mensagem, para nos contactar carregue aqui - lojadotelemovel.com #1 em telemoveis e acessorios
Re: Font license recommendation
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem with GPL'ing is that anyone who recieves a PS file using a GPL'ed font could then claim that the PS file in its entirety must be GPL'ed and thus request to get the (.tex or similar) sources for the PS file, since these would be the preferred form for making modifications. If the font is really separate: that is, if the encoding is done in such a way that it's easily extractable, then it clearly seems like a case of a mere aggregation.
Re: Font license recommendation
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01.14 +0200 2002-07-29, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: It would be better to give an explicit permission to use the font freely in documents. The case is so special that it is not advisable to rely on analogies with software. You mean I could say something like This font is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License ... Furthermore the font can be included in documents without any additional restriction. ? I suspect the wording in that furthermore clause could be tricky however. Verbatim copying is too restrictive, since fonts are commonly subsetted as part of the inclusion process. It is probably better to use something like what libgcj uses As a special exception, if you use these fonts to produce a document, these fonts do not by themselves cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. That way, people simply creating documents wouldn't have to worry (much like people who use gcj don't have to worry). However, someone modifying the fonts and distributing it will have to make source available. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of reasonable copying fee is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want for support. This is Debian's interpretation of reasonable copying fee, and why that restriction doesn't cause it to be DFSG-unfree. However, is this also the FSF's interpretation for GPL compatibility? The FSF thinks that the Clarified Artistic License is compatible. It also has a similar clause which uses the term Distribution Fee. In the license, Distribution Fee is defined as a fee you charge for providing a copy of this Package to another party. It also has the replaced system routines must pass regression tests, so I don't know what the FSF is thinking. I agree that it is a bit fuzzy, which is why the original Artistic License is considered ambiguous. I guess the simplest thing is to have people dual license the library under the GPL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
