Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In any event, if non-common law countries have legal frameworks that technically render Free Software as conceived by the FSF and the Debian Project impossible, Pure FUD. See my rebuke of Nathanael Nerode's message that I just sent. I think the truth is that some non-common-law countries (France?) have laws relating to moral rights that might make it hard or impossible to fully guarantee the DFSG-freedom of certain works, which may or may not include works that would normally be described as software. It's a real problem, potentially, rather like the problem which may exist in some common-law countries (Australia?) where contracts require consideration and licences might be treated like contracts by the courts. We probably don't need to change the GPL or the DFSG because of these potential problems, but it's perhaps not a complete waste of time to talk about them. Edmund
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
On 1 May 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: And I don't think that the author of a piece of software has any literary or artistic reputation or character connected with it. You don't? I think that artistic reputation is among the common reasons for releasing free software. It seems unlikely that Linus Torvalds's reputation is completely unrelated to software he's written. It is not an artistic reputation. Ooooh, I'd be mighty careful starting *that* little flamewar. Some people consider their programming to be art; I've seen plenty of people whose code certainly has no hallmarks of scientific method. Consider also the way some programmers react when their code is criticised - like many artists get defensive about their works... Programming, writing a novel, and painting a picture are all, at their core, creative endeavours. Perhaps moral rights in the EU specifically discount writing software as an artistic endeavour (you may even have mentioned it and I missed it). If moral rights do this, then you are perfectly correct, and I'll keep quiet on the matter... Anyway, by voluntarily releasing his work under a free license, the author unmistakenly states that his literary or artistic reputation cannot be considered violated by any form of derived work. Except he cannot actually grant this blanket permission under sub 3. He cannot grant a permission to violate. But since no violation is possible, that does not matter. Can no violation take place because software is treated differently under moral rights than other creative endeavours? -- --- #include disclaimer.h Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
compatibility between Open Publication License and GNU GPL
Is the Open Publication License compatible with the GNU GPL? The Open Publication License (http://opencontent.org/openpub/) v1.0 says: | I. REQUIREMENTS ON BOTH UNMODIFIED AND MODIFIED VERSIONS | Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the | citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher | and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the | book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original | publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and | cited as possessive with respect to the title. | IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS | 4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. The above requirements seem to be incompatible with the GNU GPL. So I wish the Debian WWW Pages to be dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and the GNU GPL. Any comments? -- Tatsuya Kinoshita
Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed in main? I believe so. There is some fudging about the precise definition of opaque and transparent formats, but I'm not aware that anyone thinks they would be showstoppers in and of themselves. Actually, I do. I hope this is just a bug in the license that the FSF is willing to rectify, though. The definition of a Transparent copy is so implementation-specific that a sound file can never be part of a GFDLed document. I think this is a significant restriction on modification. Richard Braakman
Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 01:53:14PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: The definition of a Transparent copy is so implementation-specific that a sound file can never be part of a GFDLed document. I think this is a significant restriction on modification. I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part of a text document? You could accompany the GNU FDL document with a sound file, you could link a sound file from a GNU FDL web page... Making a GNU FDL document into something that's entirely sound (ie, reading it out, and including some sound effects), could matter, but that's just an opaque copy, and I don't see how you'd have any problems just including a transparent copy of the stuff that's not the sound effects on your CD. What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway? Apart from good sense, I mean. Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML (so that they're editable with a text editor) doesn't seem all that much worse than having to distribute changes in patch format. 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!'' pgpF29GEBHWG5.pgp Description: PGP signature
nano/bio convergence
Nanotech and biotech Convergence-2003 The Second Annual BCC Conference May 4-6, 2003; Holiday Inn Select, Stamford, CT, USA Register now- www.bccresearch.com/nanobio2003 exhibiting and sponsership opportunites available (For Schedule of Invited Speakers, see below) Pre-Conference Workshop Trends in Nanoscale Diagnostic Technologies Michael Pishko, Penn State, and Juan Yguerabide, Genicon Sciences Nanotech and Biotech Convergence-2003 Revised Schedule Enabling Technologies Bio-nanotechnology at IBM Research Glenn A. Held IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, New York Research at Intel Precision Technology Selena Chan and Andrew Berlini Intel Corp. Santa Clara, CA Rapid DNA Synthesis and Synthetic Biology Glen A. Evans, Chief Executive Officer Egea Biosciences, Inc. San Diego, California High throughput operations at the nanoscale through the use of miniature instrumented robots Sylvain Martel Director, NanoRobotics Laboratory, École Polytechnique de Montréal (EPM), Campus of University of Montréal, Montréal, Canada, and researcher at Bioinstrumentation Lab, MIT, Cambridge, MA TBA (Dendrimers) Virgil Percec Professor, Dept. of Chemistry University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA Nanomagnetic Flim Protects Medical Implants From MRI Heating Michael Weiner CEO Biophan Technologies Henrietta, NY Bionanotechnology of DNA Methyl Transferase-Directed Nucleoprotein Assembly Steven S. Smith, Ph.D. Professor of Molecular Science City of Hope Duarte, CA. NanoParticle Based Bioassays Bioconjugated nanoparticles for bioanalysis and biotechnology applications Weihong Tan Professor Department of Chemistry University of Florida Gainesville, FL Resonance Light Scattering Nanoparticles as Labels for Ultrasensitive Analyte Detection Juan Yguerabide Professor Emeritus, UCSD Vice President of Discovery Genicon Sciences Acoustic sensing of molecular interactions Matthew Cooper Chief Scientific Officer, Akubio Ltd. Cambridge, England, UK Use of Nanoparticles in Diagnostics Viswanadham Garimella Nanosphere Inc Northbrook, IL-60202 Bionanotechnology in molecular analysis Vincent Gau President and CEO GeneFluidics Monterey Park, California Cantilevers and Nanotubes Dip Pen Nanolithography Guy della Cioppa, Executive Vice President NanoInk, Inc. Chicago, IL Biological NanoArrays Eric Henderson Founder and Chief Science Officer BioForce Nanosciences Ames, Iowa TBA (nanotube X-ray device) Otto Zhou Associate Professor of Physics and Applied Materials Sciences University of North Carolina Chairman, Applied Nanotechnologies Chapel Hill, North Carolina Electrochemistry and Microfluidics A High-Density CMOS-Sensor Chip for Extracellular Recording of Neural Activity Martin Jenkner Corporate Research Infineon AG Munich Germany Cell-based bioassays in microfluidic systems Michael Pishko Professor Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Penn State University Park, Pennsylvania Applications of Microtransponders in High Speed, Multiplexed Biological Assays Wlodek Mandecki Pharmaseq, Inc. Monmouth Junction, New Jersey Nanoliter and Picoliter Liquid Handling for Life Science Applications Richard Ellson Chief Technology Officer, Picoliter, Inc. Sunnyvale, CA Detection of Biological Warfare Agents Kalle Levon Director, Polymer Research Institute Polytechnic University Brooklyn, New York Studying biology one molecule at a time Steven Turner Nanofluidics, Inc. Ithaca, NY Funding and Commercialization Issues DARPA Funding of Nanobiotechnology Projects Anantha Krishnan Program Manager, Defense Sciences Office Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Arlington, Virginia Do More with Less: Creative Intellectual Property Strategies to Maximize Profits and Revenues While Minimizing Expenditures on Your Portfolio David A. Kalow Managing Partner Kalow and Springut New York, New York Patents and Protecting Your Invention Rights Lisa M. Caldwell Patent Attorney Klarquist Sparkman, LLP Portland, Oregon Biomedical Applications of Nanoscale Devices-Commercial Opportunities Steven Edwards Analyst BCC, Inc. Christiana, Tennessee To RegisterOnline: www.buscom.com/nanobio2003/registration.html Questions, contact: Sharon Faust: Conference Coordinator. 203-853-4266; ext: 304; 203-853-0348, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nanotech and biotech Convergence-2003 The Second Annual BCC Conference May 4-6, 2003; Holiday Inn Select, Stamford, CT, USA www.bccresearch.com/nanobio2003 exhibiting and sponsership opportunites available (For Schedule of Invited Speakers, see below) Call for Posters Please Send Abstracts to: Steven A. Edwards Program Chairman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pre-Conference Workshop Trends in Nanoscale Diagnostic Technologies Michael Pishko, Penn State, and Juan Yguerabide, Genicon Sciences Nanotech and Biotech Convergence-2003 Revised Schedule Enabling Technologies Bio-nanotechnology at IBM Research Glenn A. Held
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
* Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501 12:56]: On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote: sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or artistic reputation or character. So, I assume that if a work which has artistic or literary value is licensed under the GPL, version 2, people living outside common-law countries can't modify and distribute because of: 7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. Interesting. I cannot see the problem here. Even if the quoted sub 2 can be applied, it may only disallow you making something available to the public (i.e. some forms of distributing it). The quoted point 7 would only apply, if one wasn't allowed to distribute copies with source and allowing the receiver everything allowed by GPL. (As this are the mentioned obligations mentioned in the GPL). /me wonders if there are more countries besides his own that need to be no longer considered part of the free world. :-D Even extreme legislations for author's rights does not reduce the ability to create free software (though those rights might only performed in other countries), as long as law does not demand, that people have to encode laws in contracts they make. (Things like You are not allowed to use this software to commit crimes. And I guess such requirements will not exist in any sane (i.e. not 'common') jurisdisction. After all, why should people be forced to forbid things already forbid by law?) Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content... I've seen this meme popping up in a couple of places. Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this statement? Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpfX6Vx1KTDa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: compatibility between Open Publication License and GNU GPL
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote: Is the Open Publication License compatible with the GNU GPL? Not remotely. The Open Publication License (http://opencontent.org/openpub/) v1.0 says: | Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the | citation of the original publisher and author. This is not a problem. | The publisher | and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the | book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original | publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and | cited as possessive with respect to the title. This would likely not be accepted for software. There's currently some debate (heh) on whether documentation can be considered free with this kind of restriction and whether there is a category of things that are not software which Debian should distribute even if they're not free. My personal opinion is that this clause makes any work released under this license non-free, and Debian shouldn't distribute it. In any case, a work which derives from both an open publication licensed work and a GPLed work cannot be distributed by anyone. | IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS | 4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. This is hard to understand, and may be non-free also. If I recieve a copy and make changes, must I point to my upstream (unmodified-by-me) or to her upstream (unmodified-by-her), or to some original author whose work may have been so changed as to be irrelevant by now? If I only need to point to the location I recieved the work, and can do so in the changelog or copyright statement rather than in the display of the work, this is probably free. So I wish the Debian WWW Pages to be dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and the GNU GPL. I think this is a very good suggestion. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote: sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or artistic reputation or character. * Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501 12:56]: So, I assume that if a work which has artistic or literary value is licensed under the GPL, version 2, people living outside common-law countries can't modify and distribute because of: 7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. On Thu, 1 May 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote: I cannot see the problem here. Even if the quoted sub 2 can be applied, it may only disallow you making something available to the public (i.e. some forms of distributing it). It says changed _OR_ made available to the public. This restricts private modifications as well. But even without that, the restriction on made available to the public ... in a context that violates the author's literary or artistic reputation or character is enough to prevent any distribution under the GPL. The quoted point 7 would only apply, if one wasn't allowed to distribute copies with source and allowing the receiver everything allowed by GPL. (As this are the mentioned obligations mentioned in the GPL). Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work. You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work. /me wonders if there are more countries besides his own that need to be no longer considered part of the free world. :-D Even extreme legislations for author's rights does not reduce the ability to create free software (though those rights might only performed in other countries), as long as law does not demand, that people have to encode laws in contracts they make. This I heartily agree with. A work created in a droit d'auteur location and released under the GPL is freely distributable and modifiable in a common-law jurisdiction. It may be undistributable at all in it's home country, though. It's a very strong reason for NOT accepting a license which attempts to enforce these rights under common-law copyright. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
On Thu, 01 May 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content... Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this statement? I should remind myself to follow up with all of my unread mail before asking questions which are easily answered.[1] Although, note the dissonance between [1] and [2]: In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license permits only verbatim copying of the entire GPL. Wheras [1] in the FAQ says something to the effect of: If you modify it, we probably wont take legal action against you Of course, the language of the GPL copyright clause itself is prety clear that it precludes modification. [I guess the FSF just wants it both ways...] Don Armstrong 1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCModifyGPL 2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble -- I never until now realized that the primary job of any emoticon is to say excuse me, that didn't make any sense. ;-P -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpXv33IeHgkR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
Anthony Towns wrote: I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part of a text document? I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in base64 encoding. I'm not sure what browser can display that, perhaps only abiword can deal with images inlined in that fashion. Anyway, just extrapolate from there. -- see shy jo pgpywpC9G8QCY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 09:52, Anthony Towns wrote: I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part of a text document? It'd no longer be a plain-text document. To take a random example, you could create a HyperCard stack (ignoring that HyperCard isn't free, for a moment --- someday). What if there were a free equivalent of Quark, PageMaker, etc? The GFDL seems to have problems with (text) modifications in any format that can't be edited by a text editor. I think that needs closer inspection. You could accompany the GNU FDL document with a sound file, you could link a sound file from a GNU FDL web page... Yes, except that the FSF considers linking creating a derivative work, at least for GPL purposes. (I personally think that is silly in cases like this). No doubt the FSF would be less than happy if, e.g., you were to use IFRAME to link in more text (under a non-free license); why should sound be any different. What if you wanted to embed the sound in the document? HTML allows this... (I forget the RFC number. I'll look it up if I really have to.) What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway? [...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML I'd assume: A 'Transparent' copy of the Document [is] suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors BTW: Has anyone noticed that one of their examples of a standard image format, XCF, isn't openable with generic paint programs; only with AFAIK GNU GIMP? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 22:15, Joey Hess wrote: I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in base64 encoding. OK, I'll dig it up... RFC2397: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2397.txt I'm not sure what browser can display that, Mozilla can. See http://www.mozilla.org/quality/networking/testing/datatests.html They even have an MP3 example. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 33 lines which said: ?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of the invariant or cover options are exercised. Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed in main? I haven't noticed any arguments to the contrary. I'm sure anyone who does will make their views known... g - Matt
