Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:39:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision can be made. In fact, I prefer to not hear about any software patents that are not actively being enforced. Aside from the point that having knowledge of the patents can lead to charges of *willful* infringement, I believe it's far better if Debian acts as if software patents did not exist until they become an imminent issue -- just as we normally ignore any patents pertaining to ftp sites and publishing of web content, until and unless we see a letter from a patent holder's lawyer. I wholeheartedly agree. And I think the extra clutter in peoples' mailboxes that this AOL will constitute is worth it, if it helps convince one person to STFU when considering hypothesizing about potential patent problems on this list :) I'll say it again, just to be sure: unless you have a letter from a patent holder's lawyer, please do not post here to tell us about potential patent problems with package X, Y, or Z. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] People are beginning to notice you. Try dressing before you leave the house.
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that can be gained from reading patents. /me suggests that, in order to avoid inadvertantly becoming aware of a possible patent problem, we get spamassassin tuned up to class any list mail containing the word patent as spam and reject it... Am I joking? I'm not sure. -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Today is the last day of your life so far.
What new name means?
It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like that: http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt (b) The derivative work is given a new name, so that its name or title cannot be confused with the Work, or with a version of the Work, in any way. According to this thread DSL is DFSG-free licence, but some people thought, it is impractical to demand new name for modified version: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-27/msg00079.html But what constitutes new name? * * * If licence of software requires new name for modified version, is it really so bad? Just put some stuff to version number of that software to make clear that it is modified version. Of course, it depends on licence, how bad situation is. At least I think that according to DSL, it is enough, if version number of modified work indicates, that it is modified version. It says ...cannot be confused with the Work, or with a VERSION of the Work, BTW can you give some examples of licences, that explicitly say, that whole fscking name must be changed, not just version number? Does such beasts really exist? * * * If I release some poem called Ode to Buffer Overflow under DSL, and some guy called Joe Random Poet creates modified version of it, which of these names would be acceptable for that modified version?: - Ode to Buffer Overflow (Joe Random Poet Remix) - Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 1.0-Random-1.0) - Ode to Buffer Overflow revisited by Random I think that all of these names would be right according to DSL. What if my poem has a name Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 2)? Which of these would be right names for modified version - Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 2) (Joe Random Poet Remix) - Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 2-Random-1.0) - Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 2) revisited by Random I think that all of these names would be right according to DSL, too. What If somebody creates Debian package of my poem? :-) I would not mind, if modified version had this kind of name: - Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 1.0-debian-1.0) - Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 2-debian-1.0) Also irc-nick or login of Debian developer could be used instead of debian. But what if two consecutive maintainers of Debian-package does modifications? I think it would cause names like these: - Ode to Buffer Overflow (Version 1.0-branden-1.3-stutz-1.2) - Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 2-branden-1.3-stutz-1.2) And that looks ugly. But I really don't think, that my poetry could have security holes or Debian policy-violations, so there should not be need for modifications. :-) * * * P.S: I don't subscribe to debian-legal -list, so please Cc: to me. But there is that Mail-Followup-To: -header. P.S.2: BTW my poetry (in Finnish) is available here: http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/runot/ Three poems are already available under DSL. -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * * * http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/index.html Lämmitä ei laatikot, ei rusinatkaan luumukiisselin. Riisipuuron jäätyneen nyt verannalta sisään kiikutin. Ja kurkkuun jäänyt mantelikin viimein irtoaa vaik' parempi kun pysytellyt ois vaan paikallaan. Viikate
mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
Hi legal folks! Is this a condition to move proftpd-ldap in non-free? I think the additional condition of postcard requesting is a GPL violation. Quoted from author's site: mod_ldap is distributed under the GPL, with an additional explicit clause to allow linking against OpenSSL. As of mod_ldap 2.8.10, you _must_ send me a postcard at the following address if you use mod_ldap. If you do not send a postcard, you are in violation of mod_ldap's licensing. I'm not trying to be needlessly uptight about this, all it boils down to is that I want to know that people are using mod_ldap and that they appreciate the effort I put into working on it (and providing free support, I might add). I tried making this optional on some of my other software, but it's been several months and I've yet to receive even a single postcard. If you don't have(?) or don't want to send a postcard, send a photograph of your local area or of something geographically close to you that you find interesting. It'll only cost you a dollar or two. Please do me a favor and send it. Any hints -- Francesco P. Lovergine
ImageJ 2 :(
hi everybody this is the second time: i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the author define it: /* * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you * offer your changes to me so I can possibly add them to the * official version. * * @author Wayne Rasband ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) */ i wrote to the author calling for a license like bsd or gpl and the answer is : ImageJ is in the public domain. You should change the name and the About Box (Help-About ImageJ) if you add a license. what do you think about ? i'm falling crazy thanks paolo -- Paolo Ariano Neuroscience PhD Student DBAU INFM Turin (Italy) Meglio un professore povero che un asino ricco -- Meo _ For your security, this mail has been scanned and protected by Inflex
Re: Help with the Bloom Public License (fwd)
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:57:16AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote: Or how about the Meta-DFSG plus GPL (change to OSD if you do not want the DFSG used in this way, see another thread here...). This program is free software, you may (the usual GPL boilerplate). Additionally as an exception to the requirements of the GPL, you may link this code to any code whose license complies with the DFSG, as it stood on date and as interpreted by the debian-legal mailing list. You may distribute the result of the linking, but you otherwise remain bound by the GPL and must comply fully with its requirements with respect to the portions of the whole which is the program. As a copyright holder, I would never use such a license on my own software, and I'm *on* debian-legal, so... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpyuOMCIuUxV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ImageJ 2 :(
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:17, Paolo Ariano wrote: hi everybody this is the second time: i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the author define it: /* * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you * offer your changes to me so I can possibly add them to the * official version. * * @author Wayne Rasband ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) */ i wrote to the author calling for a license like bsd or gpl and the answer is : ImageJ is in the public domain. You should change the name and the About Box (Help-About ImageJ) if you add a license. what do you think about ? i'm falling crazy Sounds like it was open source and now the author has deposited the program in the public domain, so no license as such applies to it now. thanks paolo -- Paolo Ariano Neuroscience PhD Student DBAU INFM Turin (Italy) Meglio un professore povero che un asino ricco -- Meo _ For your security, this mail has been scanned and protected by Inflex -- John Holroyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Demos Technosis Ltd signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Any hints are welcome :) -- Francesco P. Lovergine
OSD DFSG - a conclusion
I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round and round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and overusing cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like there's sufficient interest in the idea of evolving the OSD DFSG in a common direction, and maybe even making them the same document. For right now, though, it seems that the DFSG isn't going to change at any price. Once Debian goes through the process of even figuring out HOW to modify the social contract, then the subject is worth bringing up again. In the meantime, I'm going to send proposed licenses for the OSI Certified mark to both debian-legal and license-discuss with a mail-followup-to license-discuss. And I'd appreciate it if there were more Debian folks on the license-discuss list. We *do* listen to the members of that list, so join it if you want to have more influence over the licenses that become approved for the OSI Certified mark. Send any piece of email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Now, then, do you think Euclid held a copyright in the _Elements_? Did the apostles of Jesus hold a copyright in the gospels? If so, when did these copyrights expire, or have they? Neither the Ancient Greeks or Romans had copyright provisions in their laws. Anyone was free to copy a work and sell the copies. In both Athens and Rome there were thriving industries based on batteries of slaves copying works for sale. The authors seemed to appreciate the exposure thus given to their ideas. Euclid lived and worked in a Greek culture, under Greek laws. The apostles lived and wrote in predominantly Greek cultures, under Roman Laws. Regards, Bob -- _ |_) _ |_Robert D. Hilliard[EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL 34990 USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Any hints are welcome :) Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section highlighted. Simon
Re: ImageJ 2 :(
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Paolo Ariano wrote: i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the author define it: /* * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you * offer your changes to me so I can possibly add them to the * official version. * * @author Wayne Rasband ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) */ i wrote to the author calling for a license like bsd or gpl and the answer is : ImageJ is in the public domain. You should change the name and the About Box (Help-About ImageJ) if you add a license. I'd modify the file that contains the above comment to include the fact that the author has since declared it public domain. Include the e-mail, if possible, with the package. PD is clearly free :) -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Is this a condition to move proftpd-ldap in non-free? I think the additional condition of postcard requesting is a GPL violation. Bleh. It's not clear that this use condition has any meaning - the GPL allows distribution and nothing requires a user to accept a contract that would limit use based on postcard-sending. Still, we tend to take the author at his word, and this demand is very non-free. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have. Henning We sure do have. Debian is a volunteer organzation that Henning basically do thing for our own sake (namely, for having Henning part of the good karma it earns to produce a good free Henning OS). Henning If we, as a project, decide to pull out, say, GNU Emacs, Henning from Debian because one of its C source files has an MD5 Henning sum that happens to be JESUS LIVES! in EBCDIC spelled Henning backwards and we don't want to force evangelization on Henning non-Cristian users, exactly zero people outside the Henning project will have any way to hold us accountable for that Henning decision. Our priorities are our users and free software. If you as a Debian developer make a decision that is inconsistent with those priorities then I would certainly feel empowered to try and hold youaccountable for that decision.
Re: What new name means?
Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like that: http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt [...] But what constitutes new name? The point is that the original work and the derivative should not be intentionally confusable. If Acme publishes Acme Foobar version 20.3 and Debian packagers need to modify it -- providing necessary security enhancements to it, say -- their packaged work is no longer of Foobar version 20.3 as it was published by Acme. That isn't to say that Debian packagers can't change a work where editing is necessary -- in fact I think they ought to work with developers in this regard. And I'm under the impression that they do -- doesn' this happen all the time? It would seem that any developer would be happy with this kind of assistance from Debian ... but if the developers do not want to implement those changes, they don't want long-style options or don't believe in a particular security fix or whatever, then the work as modified by Debian is a derivative work, a different edition, and ought to be indicated so. If I release some poem called Ode to Buffer Overflow under DSL, and some guy called Joe Random Poet creates modified version of it, which of these names would be acceptable for that modified version?: - Ode to Buffer Overflow (Joe Random Poet Remix) - Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 1.0-Random-1.0) - Ode to Buffer Overflow revisited by Random Any of these would probably be acceptable. As long as the new title is clear and not deceptive, you're okay. Taking a Foobar 1.0 release and enhancing it, then releasing as Foobar 2.0 might be deceptive in certain cases, and you may be violating the rights of the copyright holder. Copyleft never gives one the permission to claim the present or future work of others as one's own, or to suggest a collaboration where none exists. If you are clear about your role as editor or as author sampling freely from some other work, then you should be okay. What If somebody creates Debian package of my poem? I have not followed Debian development in some time but I do know that books and other non-software works have been packaged and are now part of the complete distribution. Surely there are more non-software packages than ever -- icons, audio samples, maps, fonts, manuals etc. -- but these all have a direct relation to some particular software. But even if out of Debian's scope it seems reasonable to expect things like recorded music, film or literature to be be packaged and available for use with a free OS. What about Wikipedia, that free encyclopedia? It seems reasonable to expect one day that an encyclopedia might be distributed with a free OS. Also irc-nick or login of Debian developer could be used instead of debian. But what if two consecutive maintainers of Debian-package does modifications? This actually happens all the time with the written word, particularly with translations and new scholarly editions of a work. The current editor is given title-page credit and as part of the work's prefatory matter (or in the case of etext some README file) is some kind of note or word on the manuscript, revision history and editorial process. Software as one type of writing has its own conventions. P.S: I don't subscribe to debian-legal -list, so please Cc: to me. But there is that Mail-Followup-To: -header. I don't subscribe to debian-legal either, but kept it in the header. You might be interested in checking out linart.net whose mailing list is a place for discussion on these matters.
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] /me suggests that, in order to avoid inadvertantly becoming aware of a possible patent problem, we get spamassassin tuned up to class any list mail containing the word patent as spam and reject it... Am I joking? I'm not sure. I think you are. Such a policy would mean that many actual license texts could not be quoted on the list. It would be hard to explain why APSL's you-lose-if-you-sue-us-over-any-patent clause is nonfree if we can't even say the p-word during the argument. -- Henning MakholmKurt er den eneste jeg kender der er *dum* nok til at gå i *ring* på et jernbanespor.
Re: ImageJ 2 :(
Scripsit Paolo Ariano [EMAIL PROTECTED] /* * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you * offer your changes to me so I can possibly add them to the * official version. * * @author Wayne Rasband ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) */ i wrote to the author calling for a license like bsd or gpl and the answer is : ImageJ is in the public domain. You should change the name and the About Box (Help-About ImageJ) if you add a license. It seems the author is seriously confused about which terms he offers. Unless you have hard evidence that the second answer is *not* just an attempt to clarify the first license statement, I'd say we cannot rely on it bein actually public-domain. The first license you qouted is not DFSG-free, as it requires notifying the original author of modified versions. -- Henning MakholmManden med det store pindsvin er kommet vel ombord i den grønne dobbeltdækker.
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
Scripsit Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section highlighted. Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is GPL'ed - but the reason *why* it's incompatible is that the GPL contains no postcard requirement. How do you hightlight a section that is no there? -- Henning Makholm Eat the bunnies. Stomp the hamsters. And boil three mice for gold!
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson John wrote: But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two documents that except for a few places are identical; please make a lot of changes to yours so that we can have them converge. That doesn't make much sense to me, Would you rather have the current state of affairs, where one group of free software developers says the RPSL is a free software license, and another says it's not a free software license? I can't imagine anybody would think that's a good thing. John And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become John more like OSI and the DFSG must become more like OSD. I John for one am glad that RPSL-licensed software is not in John Debian, and would resist measures that would lead to a John weakening of our Free Software standards. No, he actually seems to be asking for us to clarify the DFSG. He'd probably be happier if we clarified the DFSG to explain what we mean even if it ended up disagreeing with the OSI on all future licenses than if it was unclear. OK, perhaps not going that far, but other than the costs of doing so, being more clear in and of itself seems like a good idea.
Re: OSD DFSG convergence
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: GPL 2(c) This clause of the GPL is still something of a wart. Perhaps a future revision of the DFSG would clarify that GPL software is only free if it *doesn't* take advantage of this clause. I agree that it is a wart, but your solution wouldn't quite work. If the program as distributed in the first place is not interactive, GPL 2(c) would apply automatically to anyone who modified it to be interactive. -- Henning Makholm The great secret, known to internists and learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but still hidden from the general public, is that most things get better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning.
Re: What new name means?
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW can you give some examples of licences, that explicitly say, that whole fscking name must be changed, not just version number? Does such beasts really exist? Many components of teTeX come under such licenses. There was a major flamewar on -legal about six months back about whether they should be considered free or not. No conclusion was reached. See the archives for July and August 2002. -- Henning Makholm ... popping pussies into pies Wouldn't do in my shop just the thought of it's enough to make you sick and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ...
OSD DFSG - a conclusion
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round and round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and overusing cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like there's sufficient interest in the idea of evolving the OSD DFSG in a common direction, and maybe even making them the same document. Really? I just read the whole thread, and the only person that seemed to be advancing that idea was you. Perhaps this is the reason you have such difficulty understanding the idea of decision by consensus. If any consensus was to be extracted from the thread, I would say that it was that most people could not see the point in convergence, because Debian would always reserve the right to interpret the document as guidelines, and anyway has no commitment to package everything that qualifies, whereas OSI would always want to apply it as a US constitution style final word. For right now, though, it seems that the DFSG isn't going to change at any price. Once Debian goes through the process of even figuring out HOW to modify the social contract, then the subject is worth bringing up again. Hmm, I doubt it, since the fundamental differences of interpretation motivation are what's important here. I don't expect that any wording change would ever result in APSL covered software being admitted. Would the OSI contemplate either a wording change, or decision reversal to compromise in the opposite direction? I somehow doubt it. In the meantime, I'm going to send proposed licenses for the OSI Certified mark to both debian-legal and license-discuss with a mail-followup-to license-discuss. That seems fair enough. And I'd appreciate it if there were more Debian folks on the license-discuss list. We *do* listen to the members of that list, so join it if you want to have more influence over the licenses that become approved for the OSI Certified mark. Send any piece of email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW Is there any possibility of reversing a decision on an already approved license via this list? Cheers, Phil.
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section highlighted. Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is GPL'ed - but the reason *why* it's incompatible is that the GPL contains no postcard requirement. How do you hightlight a section that is no there? Two sections actually: The zeroth section states why his condition: As of mod_ldap 2.8.10, you _must_ send me a postcard at the following address if you use mod_ldap. If you do not send a postcard, you are in violation of mod_ldap's licensing. cannot hold under U.S. copyright law. Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. The sixth section tells us why no-one but the author is allowed to distribute the Program. 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Simon
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section highlighted. Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is GPL'ed - but the reason *why* it's incompatible is that the GPL contains no postcard requirement. How do you hightlight a section that is no there? 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further ^^ restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ^^ You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section highlighted. Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further ^^ restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ^^ Yes, but that doesn't bind the author (assuming that he has the sole copyrigt on the program). -- Henning Makholm*Dansk Folkeparti*, nazistisk orienteret dansk parti 1941-1945, grundlagt af Svend E. Johansen og Th.M. Andersen
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further ^^ restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ^^ Yes, but that doesn't bind the author (assuming that he has the sole copyrigt on the program). It does in a sense--it prevents people from using the GPL and adding additional restraints; at least according to this interpretation: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200205/msg00062.html Review the text of the GNU GPL and note the many times it makes reference to this License. The GNU GPL is a self-contained license document. A copyright holder is well within his rights to distribute a work under the terms of the GNU GPL and an arbitrary number of alternative terms, but those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work under the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void. (Branden) which I've referenced on this list several times and never seen challenged. (Direct challenges to him, though, as although I favor this interpretation, I'm not equipped to defend it.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: ImageJ 2 :(
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So, it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain. On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 09:17, Paolo Ariano wrote: hi everybody this is the second time: i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the author define it: /* * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you * offer your changes to me so I can possibly add them to the * official version. * * @author Wayne Rasband ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) */ i wrote to the author calling for a license like bsd or gpl and the answer is : ImageJ is in the public domain. You should change the name and the About Box (Help-About ImageJ) if you add a license. what do you think about ? i'm falling crazy thanks paolo -- Paolo Ariano Neuroscience PhD Student DBAU INFM Turin (Italy) Meglio un professore povero che un asino ricco -- Meo _ For your security, this mail has been scanned and protected by Inflex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:59, Steve Greenland wrote: On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Goerzen writes: Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal, say one thing, and you, one member of debian-legal, say another thing, it seems that 1) we don't have a consensus, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Consensus is not universal agreement. A single dissenter does not break consensus. Actually, IIRC, Russell Nelson is a Quaker -- a member of the Religious Society of Friends. In Quaker circles, consensus means unanimous agreement -- a single dissent does block consensus. Thus, it's considered very important to only block concensus when your conscience demands it -- not frivilously. At least, this is what I learned at a Quaker school in Philadelphia -- but IANAQ. I think this definition is actually useful. But whether it should be adopted depends on whether members of the list understand how to live in a consensus-based society -- when to block concensus, and when not to. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:22:18PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: Yes, but that doesn't bind the author (assuming that he has the sole copyrigt on the program). It does in a sense--it prevents people from using the GPL and adding additional restraints; at least according to this interpretation: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200205/msg00062.html Review the text of the GNU GPL and note the many times it makes reference to this License. The GNU GPL is a self-contained license document. A copyright holder is well within his rights to distribute a work under the terms of the GNU GPL and an arbitrary number of alternative terms, but those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work under the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void. (Branden) which I've referenced on this list several times and never seen challenged. (Direct challenges to him, though, as although I favor this interpretation, I'm not equipped to defend it.) OK, for the record, reluctantly I will. Branden, I think you're off-the-mark here. There is nothing to stop an author making a statement that You may copy distribute and modify this work under the terms of the GPL in combination with the following extra conditions, which shall override the GPL in cases of conflict. There is nothing invalid about this, as far as I can see. This is clearly what is intended in most of the cases we have seen of people saying GPL but Where's the problem? It's not what the GPL was intended for, and it's not what you'd like to see it used for (hell, most of the time it's not what I'd like to see it used for, either), but I don't believe we do ourselves any favours by pretending that it doesn't make any sense, that it's invalid, or that we can't make out what the author intended. When we come up against one of these cases we should say Is this what you intended? Thought so... we don't like this because X. Would you be willing to change it? Even if not, we think you'd do well to clarify what you mean as follows... rather than mumbling on about the author being some kind of fuckwit who clearly doesn't grok the GPL, copyright law, our principles or whatever. What precisely would be the problem with that? Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Today is the last day of your life so far.
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
It's strange to me that, in this interests of finding out how many people are using his module, he'd add a restriction that would immediately cause a great number of people to stop using it. On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Any hints are welcome :) On a different note, ProFTPD is GPL; is there anything that relieves the LDAP module/code of the requirement of being GPL-compatible? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: There is nothing to stop an author making a statement that You may copy distribute and modify this work under the terms of the GPL in combination with the following extra conditions, which shall override the GPL in cases of conflict. The author can (probably) do that, but what the eventual license actually allows or disallows is kind of murkey. Mixing and matching licenses is a bad idea, as the interpretation of such a license is (basically) left to the court system. Where's the problem? The main issue that I see is that the GPL is written in such a way that it does not allow it to be combined with other restrictions and still have the GPL take effect. In section 0 of the GPL: This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. Thus, someone could argue that the in the case of the use of the GPL but blah, the GPL itself did not apply. When we come up against one of these cases we should say Is this what you intended? I agree. As much as possible, we should respect the author's wishes, and courteously point out the problems that make such wishes incompatible with the DFSG or the licensing problems that make the terms of the license unclear. Ideally, the author will find a license that incorporates his wishes as much as possible, and remains compatible with the DFSG. Don Armstrong -- N: It's a ploy. B: What? N: This drug money funds terror, it's a ploy. B: Ploy? N: A manipulation. I mean why should I believe that? B: Because it's a fact. N: Fact? B: F, A, C, T... fact N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your argument? B: It IS true. -- Ploy http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpNTLP51sUC9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:39, Richard Braakman wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: [GPL (2)(a) stuff snipped] I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no longer use the GPL on my own code, btw.) As an indicator of licensing irregularities it's pretty much useless. Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote: Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves. That's news to me. I even asked RMS about it and he said he'd have to think about it. This was a few years ago and I never heard back, so I figured he was still thinking. (This was in the context of suggestions for GPLv3.) So you think that an entry in a separate changelog counts as to carry prominent notices? What do you base that on? Carrying is generally done by the carrier, and I note that GPL 2a specifically refers to the modified files, where everywhere else it speaks of modified work or modified program. Richard Braakman
Per-project changelogs
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote: Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves. Quoting 2a directly: You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. I don't think that can be made much clearer. Should it stop a project's inclusion in debian? Probably not, because the project can quickly and painlessly modify the files to be in compliance with this term of the GPL. Don Armstrong -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpy67tpeKOdv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:21, Richard Braakman wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote: Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves. That's news to me. I even asked RMS about it and he said he'd have to think about it. This was a few years ago and I never heard back, so I figured he was still thinking. (This was in the context of suggestions for GPLv3.) I just suggested an alternate wording for GPLv3 to him, Brad, and Eben because of your last message. I hope my patch will be accepted. But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway. So you think that an entry in a separate changelog counts as to carry prominent notices? What do you base that on? Carrying is generally done by the carrier, and I note that GPL 2a specifically refers to the modified files, where everywhere else it speaks of modified work or modified program. It's fuzzy enough that I think Changelogs match what's required, but also fuzzy enough that I want to clarify it. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote: But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway. Yeah, but most[1] GNU programs don't use code from other GNU projects for which FSF doesn't own the copyright. So for them, the GPL doesn't apply. [And this clause doesn't really apply to in-project modification by the same author, although it might apply to in-project modification by different authors.] It's fuzzy enough that I think Changelogs match what's required, but also fuzzy enough that I want to clarify it. I'd agree that sufficiently detailed Changelogs fulfill the spirit of the requirement, but I'm pretty sure that they don't fulfill the leter of the requirement. Don Armstrong 1: I'm actually not aware of a single example of an FSF copyrighted GNU program that contains code for which the copyright hasn't been signed over to FSF. -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpItssJn3MUg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What new name means?
On Thursday 30 January 2003 03:41 am, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original
work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like
that
But what constitutes new name?
If I release some poem called Ode to Buffer Overflow under DSL, and
some guy called Joe Random Poet creates modified version of it, which
of these names would be acceptable for that modified version?:
- Ode to Buffer Overflow (Joe Random Poet Remix)
- Ode to Buffer Overflow (version 1.0-Random-1.0)
- Ode to Buffer Overflow revisited by Random
The important point is to correctly identify a modified version as a distinct
work. If you want changes to be folded into the original work, you should
submit them to the author or get their permission. Otherwise, you need to
release under a name which is sufficiently different so as to not confuse
potential readers/viewers/users that it is the original author's work.
The social engineering of this, is that DSL-type licenses want to have
fewer, more complete releases. That's not good for every sort of work, of
course, but it makes sense for novels or movies, for example. If I'm reading
a novel, I want to know *who wrote it* and *what the author's voice is*.
I don't want to accidentally read some fixed version, unless I know for
certain that's what it is.
Think about the sanitized versions of *Mother Goose* that became popular a
few years back. Sure, cutting off the mice's tails (three blind mice) was
gruesome, but if you're going to change it to protect sensitive little
imaginations, you should call it New Mother Goose or something, and not
bill it as the original.[1]
This is a defense of the author's moral rights in places where there is no
legally defined moral right in a work (which includes the USA, for example --
in fact it is only in the EU that I have heard of moral rights being
defined).
The DSL doesn't prevent perversions of the original work, but it can
insist that they are not labeled the same as the original, which could damage
the original author's reputation.
This is (IMHO) only sensible for creative content works which might carry
some significant political or emotional impact. (I can think of edge cases
for software, but in the main, programs are very objective, and there's
little reason to demand such protection). I think if we could think of a
legal way to define it, we'd specify that such name changes were only
important for content changes and not structure or formatting changes.
(e.g. changing a fullscreen movie to letterbox format shouldn't force the
change). Unfortunately, that's way too fuzzy to put into a license, since
opinions of what is and is not content are very subjective.
Anyway, the reason I'm rehashing the reasoning is that it ought to be
reasonably clear from this purpose what needs to happen with a name change.
I think putting a subtitle in parentheses or adding a prefix is fine:
Ode to Buffer Overflow (revisited)
New Ode to Buffer Overflow
Ode to Buffer Overflow ('03 remix)
Joe Random's Ode to Buffer Overflow
But merely appending a version number:
Ode to Buffer Overflow (1.2)
is not really okay, because mere numbering does not show you that it's a
fork. Instead, it implies that it is in the main branch.
If you think about it, people do this for GPL stuff too, it's just not
*required*. Xemacs and emacs forked a long time ago, and we need
separate names to distinguish them. Likewise ghostview and gv.
Note that we're not talking about ever single version changing -- all
versions approved by a given author may have the same name.
You could probably get this kind of protection by trademarking the name, too,
of course.
Caveat -- I didn't write this license (Michael Stutz did), but I did use it
for a project of mine. I chose the GPL for a game engine and DSL for the game
content to play on it. (Unfortunately that project's currently dead).
Artists are very dependent on (and sensitive to) reputation issues. No one
wants their work misrepresented. Nor do they want inferior hack jobs passed
off as their work. This is Joe Random's 'Mona Lisa with moustache', not Da
Vinci's original 'Mona Lisa'. ;-D The DSL is a compromise between GPL-like
complete freedom to modify and the possessive don't fool with my work
positions. Having some control over this is a good motivator for creative
types, who might well feel violated by changes that would be perfectly okay
under the GPL (and which probably wouldn't bother programmers).
Cheers,
Terry
[1]Some pedant may well note that Mother Goose is public domain, so is not
protected by any such requirement. I am of course speaking in the
subjunctive: if it *were* under the DSL this particular abuse would not be
allowed.
--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com
Some things are too important to be taken seriously
