Is epic package non-free?
Hi,
[Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
the check, i've some doubts about the license:
Quoting debian/copyright:
IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by Michael Sandrof. You have the
right to copy, compile, and maintain this software. You also
have the right to make modifcations to this code for local use
only.
...for local use only. ?!
Version 2.1.1 to 2.2pre7 are Copyright 1991, 1992 Troy Rollo.
Versions 2.2pre8 and above are copyright (c) 1992-1996
matthew green. Any modifications to this code may be
redistributed with this copyright attached.
Two modules of the source code, ('scandir.c', copyright 1983), and
('glob.c', copyright 1993) are copyright by the Regents of the
University of California, with modifications by various contributers.
All rights are reserved by the University of California.
All rights are reserved by the University of California. ?!
This software is provided ``as is'' and without any express or
implied warranties, including, without limitation, the implied
warranties of merchantibility and fitness for a particular purpose.
Some modifications made to the original (stock) client:
Copyright (C) 1993, 1997 Jeremy Nelson,
Copyright (C) 1994 Jake Khuon,
Copyright (C) 1995, 1997 Jeremy Nelson and others (EPIC software
labs),
the rights to which are granted non-exclusively to matthew green and are
provided to you under the terms of this license.
Reading the source (source/irc.c):
[...]
* Written By Michael Sandrof
* Copyright(c) 1990
* See the COPYRIGHT file, or do a HELP IRCII COPYRIGHT
[...]
I can't found the original copyright file in the debian source package.
I'll prepare a new package, but will be it uploaded to the non-free
section?
Thanks in advance,
--
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s: epic isn't epic4.
Re: The Show So Far
Steve Langasek said: On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: The argument is that //rmi.bar.com/Bar is a GPL'd program, and this java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it. Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking to Bar. What's not clear is distribution: it seems that Bar is never actually being distributed to the user of this application. Since the binary is never distributed, the GPL's source requirements never kick in. Yes, I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the ASP loophole in terms of RPC services. And for the reasons stated, I think the costs of closing this hole are high enough that it should NOT be closed. I agree that the costs of closing the ASP loophole are too high. I also think that the converse situation, a GPL client using a GPL-incompatible RPC service, is already adequately addressed by the GPLv2 (though some here disagree that it is addressed). I disagree that it is addressed. Your previous email said that the distributor must be able to distribute source to the complete client (including the remote server). If the client can work with either //rmi.bar.com/Bar (the proprietary server) or with //rmi.gnu.org/gnuBar, based on which configuration option is chosen at runtime by the user, which server is part of the source? For a specific example, consider cddb.org (aka gracenote.com now) and freedb.org. --Joe
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 05:05 AM, Anthony Towns wrote: Giving away CDs at tradeshows that don't include source comes under 3(b). I suppose you could arrange to give everyone both binary and source CDs, then ask them to give the latter back to you. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- faq.html#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites Given those, and the terms of 3(a), I don't see what'd be wrong with having two piles on the table: Binary CDs and Source CDs. They wouldn't even have to be the same size; so long as there is at least one source CD, you can have binary CDs.
Re: Is epic package non-free?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: Hi, [Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed] I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After the check, i've some doubts about the license: Quoting debian/copyright: IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by Michael Sandrof. You have the right to copy, compile, and maintain this software. You also have the right to make modifcations to this code for local use only. ...for local use only. ?! It doesn't appear that we have the right to redistribute the Sandrof code. Reading the source (source/irc.c): [...] * Written By Michael Sandrof * Copyright(c) 1990 * See the COPYRIGHT file, or do a HELP IRCII COPYRIGHT [...] I can't found the original copyright file in the debian source package. I'll prepare a new package, but will be it uploaded to the non-free section? I highly recommend that you file a bug requesting the removal of this package. Simon
Forced publication requirement and import/export restrictions
Hi! Here is some combination of the Chinese Dissident and Fred the Lawyer tests. Consider the following situation. There is a program written in Europe. Someone in USA (say, Fred the USA dissident:-) takes this program and incorporates some form of encryption which is illegal to export from USA. Should this be possible with free software? Probably yes. But what if original program's licence includes a forced publication requirement? Even if the licence requires to provide modifications only to original author, on demand, at cost etc. Fred is stuck. GPLv2 is OK with this: Fred may distribute the changed program only to his friends inside the USA and give sources with binaries. But there seems to be problem if Fred gives Joe a written offer for sources and Joe transfers it to a third party outside the USA (BTW this third party doesn't even need to have binaries to request sources). And IIUC there are also restrictions on import of software to the USA (DeCSS?), right? So a symmetric scenario is also possible. And things become more complicated in ASP case -- restrictions on import/export of services and software are likely to differ, so it could be legal to put some program behind a web interface but be illegal to put the program itself on the web. Sorry if all this is trivial, already known, irrelevant or completely incorrect:-) WBR, Sasha P.S. BTW what does TINLA mean?
Re: Is epic package non-free?
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 12:46, Simon Law wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: [..] Reading the source (source/irc.c): [...] * Written By Michael Sandrof * Copyright(c) 1990 * See the COPYRIGHT file, or do a HELP IRCII COPYRIGHT [...] I can't found the original copyright file in the debian source package. I'll prepare a new package, but will be it uploaded to the non-free section? I highly recommend that you file a bug requesting the removal of this package. I guess that you're right. David can you do it? You're the current maintainer.If you can't, i need your agree to do it, according with Developers Reference[1]. If you fail to response i'll retitle #184670 again as O: and fill a bug against epic package reporting the license problem, exposed here. [1] = http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-removing-pkgs Thanks, -- Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is epic package non-free?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After the check, i've some doubts about the license: http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html Michael Sandrof, Troy Rollo, and Matthew Green are putting the ircII code under a BSD-like license (without the advertising clause), retroactive to all versions of ircII, past and present. This action is to remove any doubt as to whether ircII is Open Source. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgp8vz2aHDNLO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#184670: Is epic package non-free?
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It doesn't appear that we have the right to redistribute the Sandrof code. [...] I highly recommend that you file a bug requesting the removal of this package. No. Check the other ircii-based packages; Michael retro-actively re-licensed his code so it's free. You can find details (hopefully) in their copyright files or alternatively the list archives. -- James
Re: Is epic package non-free?
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:26, Simon Law wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: Hi, [Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed] I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After the check, i've some doubts about the license: Quoting debian/copyright: IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by Michael Sandrof. You have the right to copy, compile, and maintain this software. You also have the right to make modifcations to this code for local use only. ...for local use only. ?! Now that I've dug further into this matter, I see this in ircii-pana's debian/copyright following a copy of the revised BSD: (This is the new IRC-II copyright, negotiated by David Welton of the Debian Project and applied retroactively by Michael Sandrof and the other original authors.) Looks like epic is OK after all. Where? At ircii source package i found: The following is the copyright of the current development Version. The Copyright was changed after David Welton of Debian has some talk to Michael Sandrof. If ircii and epic are ok with the license, the epic package needs a update in the copyright file. David, can you clarify to us? Bye, -- Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is epic package non-free?
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After the check, i've some doubts about the license: http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html Michael Sandrof, Troy Rollo, and Matthew Green are putting the ircII code under a BSD-like license (without the advertising clause), retroactive to all versions of ircII, past and present. This action is to remove any doubt as to whether ircII is Open Source. Thank you aj. Definitely the debian/copyright file needs a update.ASAP i'll do it and upload. Can we consider this issue solved? Are you agree Simon? Thank you, -- Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is epic package non-free?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:53:53PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After the check, i've some doubts about the license: http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html Michael Sandrof, Troy Rollo, and Matthew Green are putting the ircII code under a BSD-like license (without the advertising clause), retroactive to all versions of ircII, past and present. This action is to remove any doubt as to whether ircII is Open Source. Thank you aj. Definitely the debian/copyright file needs a update.ASAP i'll do it and upload. Can we consider this issue solved? Are you agree Simon? Yes, the issue is now settled. epic is DFSG-free. Simon P.S.Please configure your mail reader to respect Mail-Followup-To headers. I see that you have Cced me and AJ, even though we ask you not to.
Re: Is epic package non-free?
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:17, Simon Law wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:53:53PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After the check, i've some doubts about the license: http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html Michael Sandrof, Troy Rollo, and Matthew Green are putting the ircII code under a BSD-like license (without the advertising clause), retroactive to all versions of ircII, past and present. This action is to remove any doubt as to whether ircII is Open Source. Thank you aj. Definitely the debian/copyright file needs a update.ASAP i'll do it and upload. Can we consider this issue solved? Are you agree Simon? Yes, the issue is now settled. epic is DFSG-free. Did you mean DFSG-compliant? :) P.S. Please configure your mail reader to respect Mail-Followup-To headers. I see that you have Cced me and AJ, even though we ask you not to. Sorry, i did it manually. Bye, -- Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PHPNuke license
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:01:35PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall. The articles in question were circulated throughout the company so they could be copied by employees. [Hence the interal distribution...] Now, wait a second. According to Nick Phillips, that's just deployment, not distribution. There isn't any such thing as internal distribution. ;-) -- G. Branden Robinson| You don't just decide to break Debian GNU/Linux | Kubrick's code of silence and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] | get drawn away from it to a http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | discussion about cough medicine. pgpg159wPxpnz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: the FSF's definition of Free Software and its value for Debian
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oops, I confused myself. This phrase all third parties that receive copies indirectly through the recipient is still there. Could you state again what problem you have with that phrasing? It seems to me that it includes everyone it needs to include. Please see: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sorry, I couldn't turn this up at lists.debian.org -- I really wish MHonArc archived Message-IDs and permitted one to specify such as search criteria.) Surely, if I encode the Document, and it turns up in my encoding at your computer a year later, it must be either because I gave you a copy (in which case you get the rights) or because you got your copy indirectly through someone who I gave a copy (in which case you still get the rights). No, you could have broken into my computer and taken it. But I don't think the GNU GPL needs to worry about authorized recipients versus unauthorized recipients. There are plenty of legal avenues of redress for people whose computers are intruded upon; I do not think that the GNU GPL needs to provide yet another. Especially since many corporate licensors would predicate revocation of the license due to unauthorized receipt of the work on their bare assertion that the work was received in an authorized fashion, rather than basing it on a finding of fact by a court, where (at least nominally) one has to go to all trouble of having to meet standards of evidence and burdens of proof. Also see chilling effects. -- G. Branden Robinson| There is no gravity in space. Debian GNU/Linux | Then how could astronauts walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Because they wore heavy boots. pgpxL04kshS2X.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:15:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 4. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to *non-users* of the software, access to the source code for the software No, this misstates my position. Possessors of the software, whether users or not, should have access to the source code. Of course, now we're into that wonderful can of worms where we attempt to apply the concept of possession to something that is utterly intangible. :-P -- G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr. pgppPktRQMSZA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, what if I played it through my web server? I don't give you the DVD and I don't let you access the menu directly, so I am not distributing the work through the web, I'm just playing a video using some streaming video format. Now that is clearly public performance, isn't it? Would anyone seriously argue that fair use lets me do that? It's not public performance, but that doesn't matter. It's still illegal, because it *is* copying. just playing using streaming is, actually, copying. Thomas
Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:15:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 4. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to *non-users* of the software, access to the source code for the software No, this misstates my position. Possessors of the software, whether users or not, should have access to the source code. Of course, now we're into that wonderful can of worms where we attempt to apply the concept of possession to something that is utterly intangible. Not at all! possession here refers to the physical copy, which is, in fact, physically instantiated, and it is that physical instantiation to which copyright law attaches.
QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:07:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ok, I think you're right. That means the QPL is not actually a problem, even if you object to all forced publication requirements. Can someone spell this out (again?) for my crippled mind? This might be good fodder for the FAQ. The problematic QPL clause only applies as part of a special exception in the license: certain kinds of derivative works which you don't have to license under the QPL itself. I'm sorry, but it appears to me that there is more than one problematic QPL clause: 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: This restricts modifications to separate patch files. Furthermore, these restrictions attach to the mere act of modification, and not to distribution of modifications (or a modified version of the work). It is easy to read the DFSG as saying that the above are hunky-dory, but I forward them as points of concern nonetheless, as they are directly relevant to discussions we've been having lately on this list. a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software. This is fine, except that it attaches to modification and not distribution of modifications that do this. We should encourage licensors to be more clear about this issue, and not attempt to restrict activities that should be protected under Fair Use doctrines. b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. This is a problem. If you license your modifications under the QPL, you give the initial developer (often Trolltech AS) a special privilege that is not given to other parties, even if your modifications are so extensive and original that they merit independent copyright protection. (In fact, this special privilege is granted *only* in that case, for in situations where the modifications are so trivial that there is no copyrightable derived work, clause 3b is unnecessary. In the U.S., at least, the seed of copyright can find no root in trivial modifications[1]). As an aside, while researching my position on this issue, I learned that (again, in the U.S.) computer source may have a higher threshold to meet to merit copyrightablilty in the first place; in other words, the formalism of source code may mean that copyright protection would attach to a quantity of fictional prose, but not to an equivalent quantity of source code[2]. I believe it is illegitimate and inimical freedom to grant special privileges in a license to a copyright holder that other receipients of a distributed work do not get, especially since the original copyright holder already has tons of rights that other receipients don't have. If we were to replace a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted with something else of value such as a payment of US $1,000 must be paid; the title to the modifier's automobile, if the modifier owns one, must be signed over; or a perpetual, non-retractable grant of permission to engage in sexual intercourse with (1) the modifier, if the modifier is female; (2) if the modifer is not female, the modifier's nearest female relative aged 18 years or greater must be extended, then we all would certainly reject such a requirement as DFSG-non-free...wouldn't we? Why, then, are the potential copyrights of free software hackers who modify QPLed works without value? This is an issue I've raised before; I have long wanted a clause that represents a nexus of concerns related to DFSG 1, DFSG 3, DFSG 7, DFSG 8, and DFSG 9. License must not demand consideration in exchange for permissions granted therein, or something like that. I therefore cannot agree with the theory that QPL clause 6, even if non-free, does not render the license in toto non-DFSG-free, because the posited alternative that avoids clause 6 is to use clause 3. For these reasons, it is my opinion that the QPL is not a Free Software license. To recall my analogy to the U.S. legal system, I would regard any interpretation of the DFSG that permits the QPL to be regarded as Free as violative of the Debian Social Contract, in which we promise that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. [1] Woods v. Bourne Co., 60 F.3d 978, 990 (2d Cir. 1995) In order for a work to qualify as a derivative work it must be independently copyrightable. [...] The basis for copyright protection contained in both
Re: The ASP nightmare: a description (was Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1]. [...] [1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version. I presume this was like Solaris's /bin/true, which was something like this: #!/bin/sh # THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE OF ATT. IF YOU DISTRIBUTE IT # YOU WILL BE LABELLED AN ENEMY COMBATANT, YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS # IGNORED, AND EITHER HELD IN DETENTION IN GUANTANAMO BAY FOR THE REST # OF YOUR LIFE, OR SUMMARILY EXECUTED, AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S # PLEASURE. exit 0 Is that about right? -- G. Branden Robinson|Kissing girls is a goodness. It is Debian GNU/Linux |a growing closer. It beats the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |hell out of card games. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Robert Heinlein pgpoR6fgeTQe6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPLv3 / Affero / RPSL
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:48:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I think we have two sorts of free licenses. One set, which includes BSD and GPL licenses, which basically give users and authors the same rights; and the other set, which includes the QPL and licenses with patch clauses, which give the original author special consideration. I can't see any reason not to put licenses that require sending copies to the author into the second category -- free, but deprecated. Just so my cards on the table, I don't like the practice of giving authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our deprecation of such licenses to be more than just lip service is to reject them as violating the spirit of the DFSG, or if you'd rather, as violating Social Contract clause 1 even if the DFSG wasn't comprehensive enough to snag them. And no, I don't have any expectation that everyone else on this mailing list shares my opinion on this issue. -- G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks pgpXPOME4jHz1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OCAML QPL Issue
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Dual-licensing under the GPL and QPL appeared to be good enough for Trolltech, so presumably the same reasoning that they used when making that decision will be persuasive to other users of the QPL. The licensing of the software in question, oCaml, turns out to be sligtly more complex than apparent from Barak's initial post. It consists of a compiler and a runtime module (bytecode interpreter + libraries). The compiler is under QPL. The runtime module is under LGPL plus an explicit permission to link non-LGPL things to it. I haven't yet figured out how this permission goes beyond what the LGPL itself says. Given that the component covered by the QPL is just the compiler, it seems that there is no reason why QPL 6 is even relevant for that particular piece of sofware. Have you communicated with the oCaml folks before? Do you think they would be amenable to dual-licensing the compiler under the QPL and GPL? Trolltech AS found this strategy reasonable for Qt because the GPL didn't grant any permissions they weren't comfortable granting -- the issue for them was that the GPL *didn't* grant some permissions they *wanted* to grant, so they wrote their own license (the QPL). The oCaml folks might share these desires, in which case dual-licensing should be fairly uncontroversial. -- G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual activity ceases. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Anton Wilson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpSsezw0QHn5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Considering packaging T.Rex firewall, is it free?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:17:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: HOWEVER, I find it worrying that the legal venue is stated as | This license is governed by the Laws of the State of Texas and any | disputes shall be decided by mediation. Does this mean that the user has to submit to some unspecified mediation and waive his right to have a real court interpret the license in case of trouble? If so, it doesn't seem free. I agree. A pure copyright license (as opposed to one that attempts to restrict activities that are not exclusive rights of copyright holders, such as criticism of the producer of the software) does not need, and cannot use, any such choice-of-law provision, as one must bring copyright infringement suits in federal court, not state court. This is because the power to pass and enforce copyright legislation is reserved to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. As for international changes-of-venue, what country is going to cede its jurisdiction over its own copyright laws to some other country? -- G. Branden Robinson| It just seems to me that you are Debian GNU/Linux | willfully entering an arse-kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | contest with a monstrous entity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse. pgpS4wlT9SS2w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#184806: Copyright notices are lacking
Package: whois Version: 4.6.2 Severity: serious Tags: patch The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient. Neither is the debian/copyright file. Since the maintainer is also the upstream author, I presume that he actually _does_ want to license whois under the GNU GPL. I have prepared a patch to bring the package into compliance. Simon diff -ruw whois-4.6.2.orig/Makefile whois-4.6.2/Makefile --- whois-4.6.2.orig/Makefile 2002-12-04 19:22:15.0 -0500 +++ whois-4.6.2/Makefile2003-03-14 12:59:14.0 -0500 @@ -1,3 +1,19 @@ +# Makefile - a make script to build whois +# Copyright (C) 1999--2002 Marco d'Itri +# +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +# the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License. +# +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +# GNU General Public License for more details. +# +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software +# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA + prefix=/usr/local OPTS=-O2 diff -ruw whois-4.6.2.orig/config.h whois-4.6.2/config.h --- whois-4.6.2.orig/config.h 2003-01-23 12:56:07.0 -0500 +++ whois-4.6.2/config.h2003-03-14 12:59:24.0 -0500 @@ -1,3 +1,20 @@ +/* config.h - macro definitions for whois + * Copyright (C) 1999--2003 Marco d'Itri + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + * the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License. + * + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + * GNU General Public License for more details. + * + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software + * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA + */ + /* Program version */ /* not for the inetutils version */ #define VERSION 4.6.2 diff -ruw whois-4.6.2.orig/data.h whois-4.6.2/data.h --- whois-4.6.2.orig/data.h 2003-01-23 12:57:06.0 -0500 +++ whois-4.6.2/data.h 2003-03-14 12:59:29.0 -0500 @@ -1,3 +1,20 @@ +/* data.h - a list of servers, and their properties for whois + * Copyright (C) 1999--2003 Marco d'Itri + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + * the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License. + * + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + * GNU General Public License for more details. + * + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software + * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA + */ + /* * RIPE-like servers. * All of them do not understand -V2.0Md with the exception of RA and RIPN. diff -ruw whois-4.6.2.orig/debian/copyright whois-4.6.2/debian/copyright --- whois-4.6.2.orig/debian/copyright 2003-01-26 12:36:39.0 -0500 +++ whois-4.6.2/debian/copyright2003-03-14 12:35:18.0 -0500 @@ -1,7 +1,21 @@ This package was debianized by Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun Oct 3 19:46:30 CEST 1999. -It was written by Marco d'Itri. +It was written by Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Copyright: GPL (please see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2). +whois - an advanced and intelligent whois client. +Copyright (C) 1999--2003 Marco d'Itri +This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify +it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License. + +This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +GNU General Public License for more details. + +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software +Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA diff -ruw whois-4.6.2.orig/make_as_del.pl whois-4.6.2/make_as_del.pl --- whois-4.6.2.orig/make_as_del.pl 1999-11-07 13:46:31.0 -0500 +++ whois-4.6.2/make_as_del.pl 2003-03-14
Re: The ASP nightmare: a description (was Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
[...]
[1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
I presume this was like Solaris's /bin/true, which was something like
this:
#!/bin/sh
# THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE OF ATT. IF YOU DISTRIBUTE IT
# YOU WILL BE LABELLED AN ENEMY COMBATANT, YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
# IGNORED, AND EITHER HELD IN DETENTION IN GUANTANAMO BAY FOR THE REST
# OF YOUR LIFE, OR SUMMARILY EXECUTED, AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
# PLEASURE.
exit 0
Is that about right?
Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.7 Generic October 1998
phoenix{mschulth}1: cat /bin/clear
#!/usr/bin/sh
# Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 ATT
# All Rights Reserved
# THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF ATT
# The copyright notice above does not evidence any
# actual or intended publication of such source code.
#ident @(#)clear.sh 1.8 96/10/14 SMI /* SVr4.0 1.3 */
# Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation
# All Rights Reserved
# This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft
# Corporation and should be treated as Confidential.
# clear the screen with terminfo.
# if an argument is given, print the clear string for that tty type
/usr/bin/tput ${1:+-T$1} clear 2 /dev/null
exit
phoenix{mschulth}2:
Re: The Show So Far
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing. You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition to declare it non-free, though. But we can turn this around, and it's just as true. You're welcome to love, and/or regard as reasonable, all the crazy restrictions on modification and distribution you like. But you need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of reptition to delcare it free. What is and is not a reasonable restriction on modification (or, if I had my druthers, on *distribution* of modifications), is the very question that so many recent threads on this list have been trying to tackle. It's easy to be contemptuous of Chinese Dissident or Fred the Lawyer tests, but if the alternative is repetitious exposition of people's gut feelings -- which will surely differ -- how have we improved on these tests? How have we demonstrated that we, as a project, as least have some comprehensible heuristics for evaluating software licenses, since algorithmic processes such as the one OSI appears to be attempting to implement have notable shortcomings (from our perspective)? -- G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from history or, Debian GNU/Linux | uh, well, something bad will [EMAIL PROTECTED] | happen. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Bob Church pgpND3eir0SsV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPLv3 / Affero / RPSL
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our deprecation of such licenses to be more than just lip service is to reject them as violating the spirit of the DFSG, or if you'd rather, as violating Social Contract clause 1 even if the DFSG wasn't comprehensive enough to snag them. And no, I don't have any expectation that everyone else on this mailing list shares my opinion on this issue. I think you have a valid point; at the same time, we should have expressed it at the time Troll was drafting the current QPL. Now is, I think, too late to go back on that decision. There is value in being trusted. -- John
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:09:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote: Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: [The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.] THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Stuff in [] is optional. Stuff in needs to be replaced. Credit where credit is due, Dave: this is the MIT/X11 license. -- G. Branden Robinson| You live and learn. Debian GNU/Linux | Or you don't live long. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp0jt47BCaVK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Show So Far
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing. You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition to declare it non-free, though. But we can turn this around, and it's just as true. You're welcome to love, and/or regard as reasonable, all the crazy restrictions on modification and distribution you like. But you need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of reptition to delcare it free. It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition -- but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be satisfies the DFSG as written = free, and expect people who want to read between the lines and add their pet tests to be the ones doing the justifying. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgp8idMlWB3do.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: I think Dave's recommendation of the MIT/X11 license, though he didn't call it by that name, is preferable, because it sticks closer to the legal scope of copyright law. Could be. They're slightly different of course, and I'm not well equiped to argue whether the terms of the BSD license step outside of the boundaries able to be enforced from copyright law. Publicity rights are not within the scope of copyright law. The right to use people's names or likenesses to promote things is not assumed to attach to copyright licenses in the first place. I'd hope so, but you never know these days.[1] Regardless, their idea is that if you then used their names, it gives their lawyers an extra stick to beat you with, beyond just using the standard slander/libel laws. [Plus, they get to bring in the FBI to track you down.] Don Armstrong 1: [rant deleted] -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp9s3XUoPokB.pgp Description: PGP signature
