Re: Free open DRM software
Brian M Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management, and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free software license like the GPL, with an added clause: If the Program is designed to uphold digital rights management pursuant to the distribution of copyrighted material, any modification to the Program to undermine the terms of distribution for that copyright will violate this license. All rights to publish, redistribute, and use the modified Program are revoked upon violation of this clause. Derivative works may not modify this license so as to remove this clause. That isn't DFSG-free, no. The last sentence also reflects a curious understanding of how copyrights and licenses adhere to works. Perhaps you would be satisfied with a notice that, in the US and the EU and maybe elsewhere, it's often illegal to circumvent digital rights management technologies -- and that while your copyright doesn't stop them from doing so, the copyrights of others do. Note that this *isn't* part of the license, just a note passed along with the software. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conditions vs. (possibly inaccurate) notices (was Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
Matthew Garrett wrote: The wording of the clause is identical. Are you claiming that the differing location of it in the license alters the situations that it applies to? Absolutely. In the X11 license: Permission is hereby granted provided that... and that... appear in supporting documentation. [Warranty Disclaimer] [Problem Clause] [Other Stuff] Note that only the conditions in the Permission is granted sentence are actually conditions on the permission grant. The Problem Clause has a status equivalent to the warranty disclaimer; it's another statement. In the X-Oz license: Permission is hereby granted... subject to the following conditions: 1. [Other Stuff] 2. [Other Stuff] 3. [Other Stuff] 4. [Problem Clause] [Warranty Disclaimer] Here, the Problem Clause is *clearly* a condition on the permission grant. (The Warranty Disclaimer might be, but probably isn't.) - Now, the BSD no-advertising clause is a condition. So if the Problem Clause (Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from X-Oz Technologies.) is equivalent to the similar BSD clause (Neither the name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission), then it is of course fine. However, Branden believes that the X clause is stronger and more restrictive. (Which doesn't really matter if it's not a condition of the permission grant, but does if it is.) We asked X-Oz if they simply meant it to be equivalent to the BSD clause, but we got weird nonsense and no useful reply. :-( Side topic. Warranty disclaimers often state false things. For instance, the standard disclaimer in the BSD license says IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY ...DAMAGES... ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE; many warranties simply cannot be disclaimed in many jurisdictions, the copyright owner could be offering a separate warranty on the software, and so forth. The Problem Clause could state false things as well, but it's not actually a condition of the permission grant, so it's not a big deal. I have mentioned before that making people agree to poorly drafted warranty disclaimers in order to use/modify/distribute software can open up a can of worms and may even make the software non-free. In contrast, having the warranty disclaimer as a separate legal notice which must be preserved but is not a condition -- and this is the usual thing -- raises far fewer issues, if any. The GPL does *much* better on the warranty front than most licenses because it includes key phrases like TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW and EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING. So it's just fine that the GPL warranty disclaimer *is* a condition, because it's actually properly drafted.
Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved
In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-( Ahh, the horror continues. I would be happy to remove all of the Minolta-copyrighted code. Perhaps the best choice. Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to use his code under any license as long as his name is preserved (earlier in the bug trail) -- so for anything copyrighted by him, we're OK. *UN*fortunately he apparently isn't the sole copyright holder of the 5250 code. Permission would be needed from Minolta, and I seriously doubt he has the right to speak for them, even though he's an employee. I doubt he wants to go to the trouble of clearing this with Minolta's legal department. :-( As for the what this means paragraph in the Lineage file, that was written by an idiot, and should be removed (in fact, I thought I had removed it already). Well, that's simple then. :-) As for the Georgia Tech copyrighted code, I've been through this issue with them twice over the years, and the public use language was something they suggested. I don't know what it means, either. Shall I give it another go with them, to see if they will allow a different copyright notice? If so, what kinds of notices would be acceptable? Ideally, the MIT/X11-like license already used by most of the code; that would look like this: Copyright © 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 30332. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. (It could also be consolidated with the other essentially identical notices.) If they don't like that, perhaps change it to hereby granted to all members of the public? That's probably (hopefully) what they mean by public use. Alternately, the Georgia Institute of Technology license appears to be an acceptable and DFSG-free license (-legal, please verify -- I'm not 100% sure). That, changed for Georgia Tech Research, would look like this: Copyright © 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 30332. All rights reserved except for those rights explicitly mentioned below. Permission is granted to distribute freely or to modify and distribute freely any materials and information contained herein as long as the above copyright and all terms associated with it remain intact. This appears to be a free, all-permissive license. (Debian-legal should probably comment, of course; I am assuming that freely is not a no-fee restriction but simply intended to make the permission broad, and that copy is clearly implied by distribute. Ideally the copyright holders would clarify that my interpretation is the same as theirs.) If Georgia Tech Research Corporation has some relationship with the Georgia Institute of Technology, it might be more amenable to using a familiar license statement. If none of these options work for them, we really need to figure out what they *want*. If we know *why* they don't like the standard license used for the rest of 3270, debian-legal can probably recommend a license tailored to suit their needs.
Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On 10-8-2004 00:49, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I propose to built netatalk (with GPL licence) against OpenSSL (a non-GPL licence) and distribute the whole with the GPL licence. How does that violate the GPL? You can't distribute the whole under the GPL. You must adhere to the OpenSSL license *and* the GPL, since the binary you're distributing combines both. In order to distribute a binary under the GPL, you must grant a license to the entire work under the terms of the GPL (see GPL section 6). That includes all code being used, regardless of what technology is being used to bind that stuff together (static linking, dynamic linking). However, you can't do that; you don't have permission to grant me a license to OpenSSL under those terms. Therefore, you can't comply with GPL#6, and so you can't distribute the binary. OK. I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it, and in fact would argue that this Since your opinion forms the majority, that is the end of that. For the record, this is my opinion: If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is present. However, it can just as well work without it (as long as I don't use the features it requires OpenSSL for). So because of that, I'd say that this makes netatalk a standalone work. If this nonetheless *due to the GPL* (as opposed to due the OpenSSL licence) contaminates the *WHOLE* OpenSSL package by forcing it to redistribute as GPL (note: be aware that I do not actually distribute any actual executable OpenSSL code! I may not distribute OpenSSL with it, or distribute it as source). Well, this would be a violation of rule #9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines: 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. If your reasoning of this contamination is correct (I personally hope it is not, but FSF seems to think so), I argue that the above line of the DFSG explicitly forbids to use the GPL for any component of Debian software. Shocking... Also for the record, if I look at the restriction imposed by the OpenSSL licence, they are not as bad as the restrictions imposed by the GPL when it comes to distributing a binary version of netatalk: According to #3 of the OpenSSL licence, you must include the attribute to the OpenSSL Group. However, you do not to place whole or part of netatalk under the OpenSSL licence, because it does not talk about derivate works. Or to be precise: it does not explicitly define 'derivate works' as extremely broad, as the GPL does (but other licences like the LGPL do not). Simular to if OpenSSL would have been under LGPL, then netatalk would also not be a derivate work. The OpenSSL talks about redistributions in binary form. However, since 0 bytes of OpenSSL code are shipped with the linked version, I can only reasonably conclude that this would not apply to this particular binary distribution of netatalk. I will have a look in incorporating GnuTLS, even though I personally belief that this whole thing (duplicating an effort, just because of a single line of attribution) is a serious indication that restrictions are overrated in our society. I knew that, but I'm currently disappointed that this also applies to open software. To me it is not in the spirit of free as mentioned in the Debian Social Contract. Oh well, I'll survive. Regards, Freek Dijkstra (being very disappointed in the GPL now)
Re: Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me. 2. Don't break threads. On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Pay more attention. :-) The warranty disclaimer is not a condition of the license; it's not a condition of any sort, simply an assertion that there is no warranty. Now if a license said provided that you accept the following disclaimer, that would be a condition. Then there are no conditions in the X license; The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. is also an assertion. The verb of obligation in question, shall, is used in this clause and the dealings one. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Hello, Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge. As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the clause QPL 6c problem. The problems concerning QPL 3 remain, but consensus about it has been much more dubious, so i propose we let it be right now, and revisit it maybe at a later time, as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge release than nit picking here. Also, as said, it would be more constructive to let this be today, and come back once upstream is deciding to change licence completely, which may well happen in the next year or so, in followup to the CECILL licencing move. Finally, i think that we have a general problem with the upstream can use contribution in a proprietary way, since other packages seem to be affected by this also. Friendly, Sven Luther In the following, the Library refers to all files marked Copyright INRIA in the following directories and their sub-directories: asmrun, byterun, camlp4, config, otherlibs, stdlib, win32caml and the Compiler refers to all files marked Copyright INRIA in the following directories and their sub-directories: asmcomp, boot, bytecomp, debugger, driver, lex, ocamldoc, parsing, tools, toplevel, typing, utils, yacc The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0 (included below). The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License version 2 (included below). As a special exception to the Q Public Licence, you may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software and are not made available to the general public, without any of the additional requirements listed in clause 6c of the Q Public licence. As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you may link, statically or dynamically, a work that uses the Library with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General Public License. By a publicly distributed version of the Library, we mean either the unmodified Library as distributed by INRIA, or a modified version of the Library that is distributed under the conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General Public License. -- THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE version 1.0 Copyright (C) 1999 Troll Tech AS, Norway. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute this license document. The intent of this license is to establish freedom to share and change the software regulated by this license under the open source model. This license applies to any software containing a notice placed by the copyright holder saying that it may be distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0. Such software is herein referred to as the Software. This license covers modification and distribution of the Software, use of third-party application programs based on the Software, and development of free software which uses the Software. Granted Rights 1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, or software items that link with the Software, in any form signifies acceptance of this license. 2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed. 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: a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software. 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. 4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the
Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:56:08AM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote: OK. I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it, and in fact would argue that this parse error Since your opinion forms the majority, that is the end of that. Well, the correct answers to legal issues are not, generally speaking, determined by majority. For the record, this is my opinion: If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is present. However, it can just as well work without it (as long as I don't use the features it requires OpenSSL for). So because of that, I'd say that this makes netatalk a standalone work. I don't buy that you can circumvent the GPL simply by taking GPL code, pushing it into a loadable module, making your proprietary code use it, and making them two separate downloads: I can't distribute these together; in order to get around the GPL, you'll have to download and install these separately. If this nonetheless *due to the GPL* (as opposed to due the OpenSSL licence) contaminates the *WHOLE* OpenSSL package by forcing it to redistribute as GPL (note: be aware that I do not actually distribute any actual executable OpenSSL code! I may not distribute OpenSSL with it, or distribute it as source). Well, this would be a violation of rule #9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines: 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. The GPL is placing restrictions on software that it's combined with; the restriction is unrelated to what it is distributed along with. None of this changes if OpenSSL is distributed on a CD, and the user downloads the application. According to #3 of the OpenSSL licence, you must include the attribute to the OpenSSL Group. However, you do not to place whole or part of netatalk under the OpenSSL licence, because it does not talk about derivate works. Or to be precise: it does not explicitly define 'derivate works' as extremely broad, as the GPL does (but other licences like the LGPL do not). Simular to The OpenSSL license's concept of a derivative work isn't the issue; it's the GPL's conditions being violated. Regardless of anything the OpenSSL license says or doesn't say, the GPL considers the binaries a derivative work. (Whether or not that's a legally valid thing to do, the OpenSSL license's definitions don't enter into it.) The GPL says any work derived from this must be available under these terms. A binary linking against OpenSSL is not available under those terms, because a portion (OpenSSL itself) has a requirement that if (for example) you reuse any of the code, you must include a blurb in your ads, etc. That is, I must be able to take any part of the final binary being used, grab its source, and use it under the terms of the GPL. If I can't do so, something is violating the GPL. I will have a look in incorporating GnuTLS, even though I personally belief that this whole thing (duplicating an effort, just because of a single line of attribution) is a serious indication that restrictions are overrated in our society. I knew that, but I'm currently disappointed that this also applies to open software. To me it is not in the spirit of free as mentioned in the Debian Social Contract. Oh well, I'll survive. I don't think the advertising requirement is as minor as you make it out to be. It seems that if you take out a banner ad for your software, and say Try DijkstraFtp, with SSL support!--you've mentioned a use of an OpenSSL feature, and now you have to make it an animated GIF so you have space to say This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/). Even if that didn't trigger it, saying (powered by OpenSSL!) would. Further, you have to have that URL--even if it's no longer valid (for example, the website no longer accepts non-SSL connections and the only valid URL for it is https). #5 can become very silly, too; combine enough snippets and you can have a work that has a requirement: 'Products derived from this software may not be called OpenSSL, Apache, Tigris, PHP, or Sudo.' (For an example of why this class of restriction is annoying, you'd have trouble reusing Apache code in ApacheTrainer, software for training Apache helicopter pilots.) I'm not arguing that the license isn't free; just that the GPL isn't the only license placing annoying restrictions here. Regards, Freek Dijkstra (being very disappointed in the GPL now) Lots of people become disappointed in the GPL once they personally become the one wasting time reimplementing stuff due to incompatibilities that the GPL deliberately causes. I no
Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On 10-08-2004 11:24, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record, this is my opinion: If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is present. However, it can just as well work without it (as long as I don't use the features it requires OpenSSL for). So because of that, I'd say that this makes netatalk a standalone work. I don't buy that you can circumvent the GPL simply by taking GPL code, pushing it into a loadable module, making your proprietary code use it, and making them two separate downloads: I can't distribute these together; in order to get around the GPL, you'll have to download and install these separately. You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use it, and make them into two seperate downloads. Because THAT is what I wish, what you describe (which, as I understand now, is indeed not allowed by the GPL). As a side-note. What I want is already common practice. In particular this is what happens in kernel development. The GNU/Linux kernel is GPL-licenced, while a lot of hardware drivers (the loadable modules) have non-GPL compatible licences. Maybe I need to ask this question on one of the GNU lists. [Argument that GPL violates rule #9 of the DFSG snipped] The GPL is placing restrictions on software that it's combined with; the restriction is unrelated to what it is distributed along with. OK. I was probably wrong there. combined with and distributed along with are two different things. Maybe my argument holds if I refine it, but honestly, I really hope not to prove that, so I let that rest. Thanks for the counter-argument. ['Silly' requirements in the OpenSSL licenced pointed out] I'm not arguing that the license isn't free; just that the GPL isn't the only license placing annoying restrictions here. I agree. Thanks. I guess it is just that in my limited vision, GPL was 'top of the bill' and was great because it 'allowed free software'. I now realise that things are not as black and white. I may come over it. :-) But I will probably use LGPL (or the MIT licence you mentioned) for my projects in the future. Regards, Freek Dijkstra (who never thought that a good argument about laws and licence could be this exciting)
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Sven Luther wrote: Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge. I would only offer one small piece of feedback, and that is that the license for The Compiler is described as the QPL version 1.0, while INRIA (with input from Debian-legal) has made some significant (DFSG-freeing) changes to the official TrollTech QPL 1.0. Perhaps describing it as a modified version of the QPL 1.0, just so that it's clear? It's a very minor nit, though. --Joe
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:43:06AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge. I would only offer one small piece of feedback, and that is that the license for The Compiler is described as the QPL version 1.0, while INRIA (with input from Debian-legal) has made some significant (DFSG-freeing) changes to the official TrollTech QPL 1.0. Perhaps describing it as a modified version of the QPL 1.0, just so that it's clear? It's a very minor nit, though. No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which is why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception. The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by Trolltech, so it is less problematic. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Free open DRM software
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Brian M Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management, and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free software license like the GPL, with an added clause: If the Program is designed to uphold digital rights management pursuant to the distribution of copyrighted material, any modification to the Program to undermine the terms of distribution for that copyright will violate this license. All rights to publish, redistribute, and use the modified Program are revoked upon violation of this clause. Derivative works may not modify this license so as to remove this clause. That isn't DFSG-free, no. To properly ground that in the DFSG: According to DFSG #3, in general, restrictions on modification are not free. While certain types of restrictions are allowed by other clauses (such as not allowing modifications that share the same name as the original work, only allowing derivative patches), and tradition allows certain other restrictions (such as requiring derivative works to maintain warranty disclaimers), this addition goes well beyond that. It is arguably in violation of DFSG #6, since it discriminates against those who wish to modify the software for research or critical purposes. (Such as someone looking for security bugs in another DRM piece may want to throw very large buffers into the datastream) I'd also say that it is almost a reverse of DFSG #9, in that actions taken with respect to another work's license (the DRM-protected work) can terminate your license for the DRMreader work. It's almost as if DRMreader is contaminated by the license for all DRM-protected work. Finally, permission to use the work (particularly referring to computer software) is not regulated by copyright law, so it can not be revoked by a violation of the copyright license. --Joe
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Sven Luther said: No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which is why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception. The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by Trolltech, so it is less problematic. Ok, one apt-get install wdiff later, and I agree with you completely. I thought I had read about some wording changes to other clauses, but there aren't any in the licenses you'd posted. Would it be possible, though, (perhaps in the debian copyright file) to indicate that this is not licensed under the (non-free) stock QPL, but rather a relaxed QPL? Just as a note for future readers? --Joe
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On 2004-08-10 10:37:28 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge release than nit picking here. Well, don't post flamebait to debian-legal that seems to suggest that legal bugfixing is nit picking if you don't like flames :P [...] in the next year or so, in followup to the CECILL licencing move. Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being posted to debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA. The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0 (included below). I don't think this is still the QPL after the (permitted) edits, but a QPL. A similar description contributed to the Oslo/Amsterdamn problem in the QPL summary draft. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:41:51AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote: Sven Luther said: No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which is why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception. The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by Trolltech, so it is less problematic. Ok, one apt-get install wdiff later, and I agree with you completely. I thought I had read about some wording changes to other clauses, but there aren't any in the licenses you'd posted. Would it be possible, though, (perhaps in the debian copyright file) to indicate that this is not licensed under the (non-free) stock QPL, but rather a relaxed QPL? Just as a note for future readers? Euh ? Where would it say that ? And is the : The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0 (included below). As a special exception to the Q Public Licence, you may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software and are not made available to the general public, without any of the additional requirements listed in clause 6c of the Q Public licence. Not clear enough ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-08-10 10:37:28 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge release than nit picking here. Well, don't post flamebait to debian-legal that seems to suggest that legal bugfixing is nit picking if you don't like flames :P excessive legal bugfixing is. [...] in the next year or so, in followup to the CECILL licencing move. Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being posted to debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA. Read the mailing archive, i think i posted it two times already. It will not be the CECILL licence, but some other future licence of the same family. But this is too early to discuss here now, and i will sure keep debian-legal informed about any such moves. The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0 (included below). I don't think this is still the QPL after the (permitted) edits, but a QPL. A similar description contributed to the Oslo/Amsterdamn problem in the QPL summary draft. It is the plain QPL, the only change being the choice of law, which trolltech allowed to change, and now plainly states that the choice of law is the french one, and nothing more. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Re: nmap license
You are right. this will render nmap undistributable by Debian. -- br,M
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being posted to debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA. Read the mailing archive, i think i posted it two times already. [...] Please understand that I can't do everything. Tracking -legal already takes up a lot of my time and I'm not paid for this. You seemed to hear about this anyway, so it looked cheapest to ask you to continue telling us. That way, I hope we avoid some why didn't you warn anyone about this and why didn't you get involved with the discussion if you care accusations if relicensing goes badly for debian's users. this is too early to discuss here now, and i will sure keep debian-legal informed about any such moves. Thanks. The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0 (included below). I don't think this is still the QPL after the (permitted) edits, but [...] It is the plain QPL, the only change being the choice of law, which trolltech allowed to change, and now plainly states that the choice of law is the french one, and nothing more. Can it be described as the Q Public License version 1.0 with a change to choice of law instead, please? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
advice regarding doom-engine licences
Hello all, I am emailing the list to ask your advice regarding a collection of licences which the doom engine and related engines have been licenced under. This is in relation to bug #264816 , `doomlegacy-sdl: combines incompatible, non-dfsg licences'. The doom computer game consists of two main files - the executable and a data file known as the IWAD. ID Software release the source of the engine under the non-profit licence described in DOOMLIC.TXT[1]. They later released it under the GPL licence[2]. The IWAD is only available commercially and for that reason all doom ports currently go in contrib[3]. Raven Software / Activision later released the heretic and hexen source code under a new licence[1]. I am mailing to ask your opinions of the following points: 1) The original ID licence and the heretic/hexen licence are both incompatible with the GPL and thus attempts to mix them result in a combination which cannot be included in debian nor non-free. Both licences are additionally not DFSG free. 2) The original ID licence and the heretic/hexen licence are compatible with each other. 3) the heretic/hexen licence is suitable for inclusion in non-free. The doom licence has been discussed on -legal before[4] and the concencus seems to have been that the original doom licence is not suitable for inclusion in non-free. This leads me to believe that point 3 above is incorrect. Thank you for your help. [1] Please find the mentioned files attached to the bug report #264816 http://bugs.debian.org/264816 [2] possibly as a result of a very popular derivation of the source going missing due to a single hard disk crash. [3] Note: there is a project (which I am involved in) to create a free IWAD and so it is not long before we can put doom engines in main: http://freedoom.sf.net/ which has been ITPd: http://bugs.debian.org/206139 [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/09/msg8.html -- Jonathan Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:21:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being posted to debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA. Read the mailing archive, i think i posted it two times already. [...] Please understand that I can't do everything. Tracking -legal already takes up a lot of my time and I'm not paid for this. You seemed to hear about this anyway, so it looked cheapest to ask you to continue telling us. That way, I hope we avoid some why didn't you warn anyone about this and why didn't you get involved with the discussion if you care accusations if relicensing goes badly for debian's users. Ok, just that i don't have the link handy, and would have to search it in the caml list mail archive (or here). You can probably do this as well as i. this is too early to discuss here now, and i will sure keep debian-legal informed about any such moves. Thanks. No problem. The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0 (included below). I don't think this is still the QPL after the (permitted) edits, but [...] It is the plain QPL, the only change being the choice of law, which trolltech allowed to change, and now plainly states that the choice of law is the french one, and nothing more. Can it be described as the Q Public License version 1.0 with a change to choice of law instead, please? Ok, will ask, but it seems overkill to me and it is not clear what is gained. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: nmap license
On 2004-08-10 02:10:02 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I understand it, derivative work is a specific legal term, defined by law, not individual licenses. I've been told it's not in English law, which is why licences which choose English law should either define it or find another expression. I believe it is in US law. I hope that helps you with nmap. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
* Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040809 13:42]: 2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably make the exception (without asking all possible contributors) Not if he want to still use code for which he only has GPL as licence allowing him to incorporate it. PS: to play the devils advocate on this list: is this [EMAIL PROTECTED]$(%$ really necessary for me as an end-user to get open-source software to work? I'd rather had spend all this time doing something *useful*. Well, free software is normaly built upon taking copyright very seriously. Be it from the we have to subvert copyright by copyleft to abolish it or from the author's rights are human rights, but I will allow anyone to benefit from my software if they behave well w.r.t. ... camp, each leads to care about the exact rights you get much more than making propietary software. And now there is a amount of programmers who allowed their code be used under GPL. Many won't care, many would explicitly allow when asked, but they all contributed - formaly seen - under a licence normaly considered to demand all of the program to not impose any furhter restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. And as the number of people who dislike those parts of the OpenSSL licence causing problems is inot negligible, it is likely that there are people who intended what they perhaps did, to disallow derived versions having such restrictions in them. So there is this demand not to mix with OpenSSL, that some might even have intended. Legally there remains the question if the GPL is enforcable with respect to dynamic linking, but disrespecting peoples wishes what should happen with their code due to problems in the licence is still dangerous style. Yes, this situation sucks. I really wished it would vanish soon by common usage of gnutls. I hope the change to LGPL was not too late to finaly see some solution in the future. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote: You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use it, and make them into two seperate downloads. This is the same thing; they link against each other. The GPL doesn't care which portions of code are in a library, a module, or an executable, or which code initiates dynamic linkage. I prefer that; it only leads to confusion, complication and unaccounted-for cases when licenses start talking about specific technologies. In practice, there are some implicit boundaries that are generally agreed on in practice; for example, the kernel tends to act as a magic licensing firewall, such that GPL code isn't linked against the kernel or to other, unrelated processes. (I can't offer a legal grounding for this, though.) As a side-note. What I want is already common practice. In particular this is what happens in kernel development. The GNU/Linux kernel is GPL-licenced, while a lot of hardware drivers (the loadable modules) have non-GPL compatible licences. Because Linus offered an interpretation to allow it. (I personally don't believe he has the right to do that, but it's not a battle I have the time or inclination to wage beyond casual discussion.) But I will probably use LGPL (or the MIT licence you mentioned) for my projects in the future. The LGPL also has problems: it effectively prohibits use of code on proprietary architectures, such as (AFAIK) SymbianOS and most gaming consoles (eg. Xbox). I think the FSF wouldn't consider that a problem, but it leads to the same reimplementation waste that the GPL does. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: nmap license
@ 10/08/2004 15:05 : wrote Mahesh T. Pai : Humberto Massa said on Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:21:56AM -0300,: You are right. this will render nmap undistributable by Debian. Who's right? and why? web interface in lists.debian.org did not play nice with my work mail server, proxy and my mozilla. sorry. Glenn Maynard is right: Notwithstanding the phrase we don't consider these to be added restrictions, the if you execute nmap you are a derivative work phrase is both a NOP (it's the law that defines derivative works, not the license -- what the license can do is tell [via stoppel] what you WILL NOT consider a derivative work) and an added restriction (it's considering MORE things derivative than the GPL -- the GPL does not define derivatives, ie it gets the definition from copyright law) In other words: either the nmap folks drop the clarification or nmap is non-DFSG-free *and* non-distributable (GPL+restrictions) and goes away from Debian. For reference and fun, one can read the reiser4 non-plagiarism license snafu, in this same list. -- br,M
Re: Re: Conditions vs. (possibly inaccurate) notices (was Re: Pleasepass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
Joe Wreschnig wrote: The X license also says permission is granted subject to the following conditions (note the plural); What X license are you reading? I'm reading http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say anything of the sort. Are we perhaps talking about entirely different licenses?
Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
Joe Wreschnig wrote: 1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me. All right. 2. Don't break threads. This is temporarily unavoidable. When I get back to a decent machine On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Pay more attention. :-) The warranty disclaimer is not a condition of the license; it's not a condition of any sort, simply an assertion that there is no warranty. Now if a license said provided that you accept the following disclaimer, that would be a condition. Then there are no conditions in the X license; The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. is also an assertion. Oh, we *were* looking at different licenses. That explains why we were talking at cross-purposes. :-) In the X11 license (look at X.org) -- which I was looking at -- the requirement to keep notices is in a subordinate clause: Permission is hereby granted... *provided* that the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. (Emphasis mine.) The word provided makes a difference. What opensource.org calls the MIT license (and gnu.org calls the Expat license) -- which you were looking at -- is *different*: Permission is hereby granted 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. Here, there indeed appear to be three conditions (the three sentences following the colon): retaining the copyright notice, agreeing that the software is provided as is, and agreeing that the authors will not be liable. Note that the MIT/Expat license does *not* contain a don't-use-my-name clause. The X11/X.org license does, but it's not a condition. The X-Oz license does, and it is a condition.
Re: nmap license
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 06:32:51PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-08-10 02:10:02 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I understand it, derivative work is a specific legal term, defined by law, not individual licenses. I've been told it's not in English law, which is why licences which choose English law should either define it or find another expression. I believe it is in US law. I hope that helps you with nmap. There's a parallel, synonymous term in UK law. Any reasonable court should accept it as a synonym. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
derivatives in English law, was: nmap license
On 2004-08-10 21:05:32 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a parallel, synonymous term in UK law. Any reasonable court should accept it as a synonym. Relying on a reasonable court unless it's really certain might be seen as a lawyerbomb. What is the synonymous term? Given that, I wonder why we get so many English law (I don't know about Scottish or any others) licences using the sublicensing concept instead. Tradition? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Re: Re: Conditions vs. (possibly inaccurate) notices (was Re: Pleasepass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:14, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Joe Wreschnig wrote: The X license also says permission is granted subject to the following conditions (note the plural); What X license are you reading? I'm reading http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say anything of the sort. Are we perhaps talking about entirely different licenses? I'm looking at the ones that are actually in Debian, according to /usr/share/doc/xserver-common/copyright. Except for the SPI copyright, these can also be found at http://freedesktop.org/~xorg/X11R6.7.0/doc/LICENSE.html. Of the X-style licenses in that file, the phrase subject to the following conditions: is found in the SPI license, the XFree86 license, and the X Consortium license. It is not in the license that started this thread (which presumably is somewhere in the X.org source, and will be in a future Debian X release). It is not found in the Open Group license. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian domain in Japan (Was: Please add us to debian CD vendors list)
Josh Triplett wrote: Another vendor using the Debian domain. I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it but though at least you'd like to know someone has done this in Japan. Hmm, should we try to claim not to use debian domain? I'm not familiar about domain name dispute resolution policy in .jp, but we are debian trademark holder in japan, so I think we could file a compliant against debian.co.jp. Do we really want to be going after a company which is selling Debian CDs and Debian server hosting, donating money to Debian, seems to be using the logos correctly (see http://debian.co.jp/catalog/legalnotice.php), links to the actual Debian site, and does not claim to be Debian? All because they wrote in and asked to be added to the CD vendors list? It may be worth discussing the issue with the vendor and signing a 'trademark use agreement' or something, so that this is a valid use of the trademark and of the Debian name -- assuming it is a valid use, of course. Regards, Joey -- Life is too short to run proprietary software. -- Bdale Garbee Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Re: Clarification of redistribution
All, I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My apologies for the delay in closing this out. I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF on a GPL-compatible commons deed. While I believe that such a deed would be in the interest of the community generally, I don't have the time or throw weight to force the issue. As a result, we'll abandon the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license for Sleepycat's documentation. Brian Sniffen, among others, suggested: The MIT/X11 license, the new BSD license, the Sleepycat license, and the GPL are all Free documentation licenses. Using the same license as your software makes it easy to copy examples and code snippets in one direction, and informative information into comments in the other. We've consulted with our attorney, and agree that the simplest solution is to use the identical license for the documentation and the code. Accordingly, the next release of each of our products will use the Sleepycat public license for the documentation. I believe that this resolves the issue that Brian Carlson raised on July 8, regarding problems including the Berkeley DB doc suite with the Debian distribution. Thanks for your time and patience. Please let me know if you have any questions, or there is any additional follow-up necessary. Best, mike
Re: Re: Conditions vs. (possibly inaccurate) notices (was Re: Pleasepass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
licenses in that file, the phrase subject to the following conditions: is found in the SPI license, the XFree86 license, and the X Consortium license. It is not in the license that started this ^^^ That word shouldn't be there. It is in the license that started this thread. thread (which presumably is somewhere in the X.org source, and will be in a future Debian X release). It is not found in the Open Group license. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: advice regarding doom-engine licences
Hi, I didn't check the sources, but from your description, if Am Di, den 10.08.2004 schrieb Jon Dowland um 17:12: They later released it under the GPL licence[2]. is true, then 1) The original ID licence and the heretic/hexen licence are both incompatible with the GPL and thus attempts to mix them result in a combination which cannot be included in debian nor non-free. Both licences are additionally not DFSG free. is not true, since if they distribute the whole source as GPL licenced, it does not matter if they also distribute it under a different licence - we just take and use the GPL and everything is fine. The ID-licence therefore does not touch us. (Assuming of course, that the _whole_ source was once distributed by ID under the terms of the GPL) so far my pov, nomeata -- 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
[Fwd: Upgrade of MySQL FLOSS License Exception]
FYI.. -- Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---BeginMessage--- Greetings All, Version 0.2 of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception has been released. The MySQL FLOSS License Exception is an extension to the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License (GPL) that increases the compatibility between the GPL and other Free Software and Open Source licenses (such as the Apache License, the BSD license and the PHP license). If you distribute software based on the GPL-licensed version of MySQL, you may be interested in reading and discussing this exception. The text of the exception is attached to this document and is published online at: * http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/MySQL_FLOSS_License_Exception.html * (and at http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html) Major changes include: * Removal of restrictions that made distribution of MySQL challenging for BSD and Linux Distributions * Clarifications to the wording of the exception For more detailed information on the changes made and issues addressed, visit: * http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/timeline * http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/rlog?f=licensing/FLOSS- exception.txt The exception will apply to future MySQL versions 4.0.21, 4.1.4 and 5.0.2. You can download development versions of the 4.0.x and 4.1.x series that include the exception from http://downloads.mysql.com/snapshots.php The 5.0.x series will have the exception applied as soon as we do a code merge between the 4.1.x series and the 5.0.x series. If you have any questions or comments, please drop me a line! If the matter is not private or sensitive, I encourage you to do so on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion. Cheers! -- Zak Greant MySQL AB Community Advocate MySQL FLOSS License Exception v0.2 The MySQL AB Exception for Free/Libre and Open Source Software-only Applications Using MySQL Client Libraries (the FLOSS Exception). Exception Intent We want specified Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) applications to be able to use specified GPL-licensed MySQL client libraries (the Program) despite the fact that not all FLOSS licenses are compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License (the GPL). Legal Terms and Conditions As a special exception to the terms and conditions of version 2.0 of the GPL: 1. You are free to distribute a Derivative Work that is formed entirely from the Program and one or more works (each, a FLOSS Work) licensed under one or more of the licenses listed below in section 2, as long as: a. You obey the GPL in all respects for the Program and the Derivative Work, except for identifiable sections of the Derivative Work which are not derived from the Program, and which can reasonably be considered independent and separate works in themselves, b. all identifiable sections of the Derivative Work which are not derived from the Program, and which can reasonably be considered independent and separate works in themselves, (i) are distributed subject to one of the FLOSS licenses listed below, and (ii) the object code or executable form of those sections are accompanied by the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for those sections on the same medium and under the same FLOSS license as the corresponding object code or executable forms of those sections, and c. any works which are aggregated with the Program or with a Derivative Work on a volume of a storage or distribution medium in accordance with the GPL, can reasonably be considered independent and separate works in themselves which are not derivatives of either the Program, a Derivative Work or a FLOSS Work. If the above conditions are not met, then the Program may only be copied, modified, distributed or used under the terms and conditions of the GPL or another valid licensing option from MySQL AB. 2. FLOSS License List License name Version(s)/Copyright Date Academic Free License2.0 Apache Software License 1.0/1.1/2.0 Apple Public Source License 2.0 Artistic license From Perl 5.8.0 BSD license July 22 1999 Common Public License1.0 GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL)2.0/2.1 Jabber Open Source License 1.0 MIT License (As listed in file MIT-License.txt)- Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.0/1.1 Open Software License2.0 PHP License
Re: advice regarding doom-engine licences
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:36:10 +0200, Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't check the sources, but from your description, if Am Di, den 10.08.2004 schrieb Jon Dowland um 17:12: They later released it under the GPL licence[2]. is true, then 1) [snip] is not true, since if they distribute the whole source as GPL licenced, it does not matter if they also distribute it under a different licence - we just take and use the GPL and everything is fine. Ah yes, but only the doom source was GPL'd, not the heretic/hexen source, which is mixed with the doom source in the legacy package (and in a variety of engines which are not packaged for debian). -- Jon Dowland
Re: Clarification of redistribution
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:51:08PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote: I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My apologies for the delay in closing this out. Not at all, thank you for pursuing this. I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF on a GPL-compatible commons deed. While I believe that such a deed would be in the interest of the community generally, I don't have the time or throw weight to force the issue. I agree with you, and regret that I also have insufficient weight to influence this. We've consulted with our attorney, and agree that the simplest solution is to use the identical license for the documentation and the code. Accordingly, the next release of each of our products will use the Sleepycat public license for the documentation. I believe that this resolves the issue that Brian Carlson raised on July 8, regarding problems including the Berkeley DB doc suite with the Debian distribution. Thanks for your time and patience. Please let me know if you have any questions, or there is any additional follow-up necessary. That's wonderful. Thank you for being so willing to work on this. -- Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. -- Mark Twain
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge. As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the clause QPL 6c problem. Great! The problems concerning QPL 3 remain, Not so great. but consensus about it has been much more dubious, I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html that there is a fee involved (you questioned whether it was an acceptable fee, not whether it was a fee at all). Matthew Palmer mentioned it again here http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01739.html and there was no response. I also mentioned it here http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00131.html Unless someone comes up with something now, the argument looks pretty clear. so i propose we let it be right now, and revisit it maybe at a later time, as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge release than nit picking here. Getting DFSG-freeness issues fixed is just as important as technical fixes. Also, as said, it would be more constructive to let this be today, and come back once upstream is deciding to change licence completely, which may well happen in the next year or so, in followup to the CECILL licencing move. Since it sounds like the ocaml authors are not interested in completely fixing their license any time soon, it shouldn't be in main. If they change, and if the license is ok, then it can go into main. Finally, i think that we have a general problem with the upstream can use contribution in a proprietary way, since other packages seem to be affected by this also. Please list those packages. I don't know of any others. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
