Re: Freepats
Brian == Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brian Sorry, it appears I stuffed up one of the email addresses, Brian retry: Mark asked me to forward his response, which was accidently sent to the wrong address I gave (I sent the initial message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not debian-legal@lists.debian.org). I have cited Mark's response, so there is no confusion who typed it. Neither me or Mark are subscribed, please send CCs to both of us, thanks. Mark == Mark Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:03 pm, Brian May wrote: Q: What are FreePats? A: A set of SoundFont files that are intended to be freely distributed. Mark FreePats are more specifically based on Ultra Gravis Patches Mark which originally worked with their branded sound cards as Mark one instrument per file. SoundFonts generally refer to the Mark now Creative owned *.sf2 standard often distributed as many Mark instruments in a single file unit. Q: What is a soundfont file? A: A image that can be used to reconstruct notes made by musical instruments? ie. a font file for music instead of writing. So, I would imagine anything that applies to standard font files also applies here. Mark Digitized audio data that can be rendered, or compiled, Mark into instrument voicing according to the notes usually Mark derived from a MIDI file. Perhaps think of MIDI data as Mark precompiled source code ready to compile the final audio Mark rendition. Writting the source code requires a sequencer Mark instead of some text editor. Sound fonts would be more akin Mark to specialized libraries needed to generate the final Mark compiled musical object. Q: How are soundfont files created? A: I don't know. I suspect though, like a *.wav file, is no source code to generate a FreePat file? This perhaps makes it different from programs already in Debian. Mark Yes, a single or mulitple wav files along with embedded Mark meta-info to self describe how the wav files are to be Mark interpreted such as loop points, attack, release, delay and Mark many other parameters. If so, then the soundfont file a bit like a shared and/or static library that can be used to generate music (eg. a midi file contains a reference to it and a wav file embeds it) to make a full tune. Mark Yes, I would agree that a sound font is like a library and Mark furthermore suggest that the source code is the hybrid Mark MIDI and sequencer project file information that determine Mark the notes to be rendered from the libraries of any Mark instrument voices referenced and available. The BSD style license generally are the most unrestrictive license around, eg. you can you BSD licensed files in proprietary projects. I believe the majority of the X fonts are BSD licensed. Mark A concern here is misuse of the FreePats material by Mark commercial interests who may then try to restrict reusage of Mark this material. The GPL style license, as applied to this case, says if you make modifications or make derivative works of it, then the result must be licensed under the GPL (or similar license). I don't know if a wav file created from a FreePat file would be considered a derivative work or not. The GPL also says if you distribute it, then you must also distribute source code to (as appropriate to the file format). I believe the GS fonts are GPL. Mark Using source code notes to create a musical audio sequence Mark would not be a derivative in the same sense as modifying the Mark sound font to create a different instrument, or to Mark transcribe the raw wav and meta-info into another format, Mark that would be a derivative. There are other issues with the GPL that might effect soundfont files, not sure. For instance, would the soundfont file be considered source code when making a *.wav file? What if the *.wav file has since been edited in a wav editor and cannot be automatically recreated? For these reasons, I don't think it should be a required that music files be GPL. Mark As above, I don't think rendering a wav file from sound Mark fonts would be considered a derivative in the same sense Mark that re-engineering the sound font into yet another sound Mark font would indeed be a derivative. Also just like I expect to be able to type and print a document up in a word processor, and do anything I want with that document, regardless of fonts used. In fact, this might be dodgy, but as far as I am concerned I automatically get exclusive copyright of such a document, as I consider it my own work. I would hope the same applies with music generated with FreePat files. Mark As in the content of a document would not be considered a Mark
about licenses for 3D models
Hi all, About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur in a free license: You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, and his background. The idea is to create a recurrent character in different games, like Mario of Link. Jiba
Re: about licenses for 3D models
Hi Jiba, Am Di, den 20.04.2004 schrieb Jiba um 14:54: About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur in a free license: You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, and his background. This would render the licence non-free, since you restrict modification (the background can't be changed). I am not sure about the name thing, and leave that to debian-legal. The idea is to create a recurrent character in different games, like Mario of Link. I'd suggest you to keep the licence free, and especially use a proven one, like the MIT or GPL licences. You can then add a note, that does not belong to the licence, stating what you intend. Most people will stick to that - the world is not as bad as it seems :-) nomeata, guest on debian-legal -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Get Cia:lis ES 7.5 Fast intimacy
Debian-l10n-spanish, heres that info Ge_neric Vi^^agra at 80% Discount! Delivered world wide! http://harmony.becomeyoung.net/gv/index.php?pid=eph3404 other sites charge $20 per does, we charge $1.66 S'v'p'e'r vi@|gr@(C/ialis) is HERE: http://micrography.happyyoung.com/sv/index.php?pid=eph3404
Re: about licenses for 3D models
[CCing you because of the address in the To: field; apologies if you didn't want the CC] On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:54:16PM +0200, Jiba wrote: About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur in a free license: You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, and his background. I can't find anything which immediately contravenes the DFSG. You might have a problem with DFSG 10 (if the name and background of the character would be a considerable chunk of information to have to include in your software), although I think it's a stretch. The other problem is going to be modification -- the licence to the model must allow free modification and redistribution of modified forms, and how modified should the work be before we can change the name? If never, then it's going to be a bit weird with all these different-looking characters with the same name and background... Basically, I can't think of anything which is immediately problematic, but I can think of plenty of potential problems that could occur. Are you looking at this licence term from a producer or consumer point of view? - Matt
Question about DFSG and a THC project
Hello, I am interested in packaging hydra from the THC group. I think that it would be an excellent addition to the Debian project. My question arises from an added license that is in the hydra-3.1.tar.gz package that I downloaded from http://www.thc.org/releases.php The package has two files of importance to this topic: LICENCE.HYDRA LICENSE.GNU As it's not available on their website I will reproduce LICENCE.HYDRA here: LICENCE FOR HYDRA (all version) by van Hauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. This software comes with no warrenty or promised features. If it works for you - fine. It just comes AS-IS, which means as a bunch of bits and bytes. 2. Anyone may use this software and pass it on to other persons or companies as long as it is not charged for! (except for a small transfer/medium fee) 3. This tool may *NOT* be used for illegal purpose. Please check the law which affects your doing. I will have got no liability for any damage etc. done with this tool legally or illegaly. 4. If this tool is used while providing a commercial service (e.g. as part of a penetration test) the report has to state the tools name and version, and additionally the author (van Hauser) and the distribution homepage (http://www.thc.org). 5. In all other respects the GPL 2.0 applies LICENCE.HYDRA (END) The LISCENSE.GNU is the standard GPL 2.0 So my questions regarding this package should be pretty obvious by this point. Is this even possible to package this and hope to get it into Debian? Or would this just be considered non-free? Should I email the upstream author and ask if he can remove those additional restrictions to facilitate his project becoming a Debian package? Thanks in advance! Best, -- Jake Appelbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Summary wanted
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's been several days with no activity in this thread. Can someone please summarize it? I realize the original specific instance motivating this discussion has been resolved (at least it appears that way), but I still think it's worthwhile for us to document why we find the OSL 2.0 DFSG-nonfree. If no one else gets to it, I can do it later this week. Even leaving aside the termination-upon-patent-enforcement clause. It should probably at least be referred to in any summary, since it is a rather important part of the discussion. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Question about DFSG and a THC project
O Martes, 20 de Abril de 2004 ás 13:52:19 -0700, Jake Appelbaum escribía: Let this be my first try at a license analysis in d-l :) 1. This software comes with no warrenty or promised features. If it works for you - fine. It just comes AS-IS, which means as a bunch of bits and bytes. Warranty disclaimer -- fine. 2. Anyone may use this software and pass it on to other persons or companies as long as it is not charged for! (except for a small transfer/medium fee) Forbids to sell the software even along with other works -- fails DFSG #1 3. This tool may *NOT* be used for illegal purpose. Please check the law which affects your doing. I will have got no liability for any damage etc. done with this tool legally or illegaly. Restriction on use. It could be argued that it fails DFSG #6 (fields of endeavor, if I counted correctly), but it definitely fails a variation of the dissident test (dissident wants to use bulletin board software to publish banned works, ilegally). 4. If this tool is used while providing a commercial service (e.g. as part of a penetration test) the report has to state the tools name and version, and additionally the author (van Hauser) and the distribution homepage (http://www.thc.org). Use restriction. Fails the ode to the goldfish test ;-) 5. In all other respects the GPL 2.0 applies Oh, a nonconsistent license (places additional restrictions on the GPL, fine for the original author but not for would-be distributors of the work), thus undistributable. DFSG-non-free, IMO. -- Tarrío (Compostela)
Re: Freepats
Brian == Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark Using source code notes to create a musical audio sequence Mark would not be a derivative in the same sense as modifying the Mark sound font to create a different instrument, or to Mark transcribe the raw wav and meta-info into another format, Mark that would be a derivative. [...] Mark As above, I don't think rendering a wav file from sound Mark fonts would be considered a derivative in the same sense Mark that re-engineering the sound font into yet another sound Mark font would indeed be a derivative. [...] Mark As in the content of a document would not be considered a Mark derivative of the any binary type face used in the process, Mark a musical composition would not be considered a derived work Mark of the sound font material. Personally, my opinion (depending on the above) would be to use the GPL, so any modifications to the fonts themselves will remain GPL, but allow an exception (if required) so music created with the soundfont isn't restricted. If the GPL doesn't do this, maybe the LGPL will do so? Mark I also lean towards the GPL, if it fits. I would suggest you use the GPL, and add a note somewhere that you interpret the GPL as above. If anyone disagrees with your interpretation (and so far nobody has), then the issue can be resolved at that time. To do this, you could add the GPL COPYING file to the archive, and then a COPYRIGHT file that lists the copyright holders, and the fact the files are licensed for use under the GPL. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about DFSG and a THC project
Jake Appelbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LICENCE FOR HYDRA (all version) by van Hauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. This software comes with no warrenty or promised features. If it works for you - fine. It just comes AS-IS, which means as a bunch of bits and bytes. This may ban distribution in, for example, analog media. 2. Anyone may use this software and pass it on to other persons or companies as long as it is not charged for! (except for a small transfer/medium fee) This certainly bans for-profit distribution, and probably at-cost distribution on expensive media. 3. This tool may *NOT* be used for illegal purpose. Please check the law which affects your doing. I will have got no liability for any damage etc. done with this tool legally or illegaly. 4. If this tool is used while providing a commercial service (e.g. as part of a penetration test) the report has to state the tools name and version, and additionally the author (van Hauser) and the distribution homepage (http://www.thc.org). This effectively prohibits creation of derivative works which are not report-generating penetration testers, and imposes a requirement on other works (i.e., the report). 5. In all other respects the GPL 2.0 applies LICENCE.HYDRA (END) The LISCENSE.GNU is the standard GPL 2.0 So my questions regarding this package should be pretty obvious by this point. Is this even possible to package this and hope to get it into Debian? Non in main, maybe not in non-free. Or would this just be considered non-free? Should I email the upstream author and ask if he can remove those additional restrictions to facilitate his project becoming a Debian package? You may wish to ask him if he's using any code written by others and covered by the GPL: if so, he is violating the copyrights of those others. Thanks in advance! Best, -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
