Re: MPlayer revisited
On Sunday 12 June 2005 08:31 am, MJ Ray wrote: Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This seems like a potentially bad idea, actually. I certainly can't cite specific laws, but I seem to recall from similar discussions that if a patent holder can prove a patent was violated in full knowledge of the violation, he is entitled to triple damages. Law student Sean Kellogg disputed that popular legend on this list in February 2005. Because I don't live in home of the brave, land of the legal fee I don't know who to believe. Like I said then, and really meant to put together something a bit more sophisticated on the topic later, the issues is one of what constitutes notice. The finding for trebble damages does not require specific or actual notice of the patent number... in fact, failure to engage in due dillegence itself my be evidence of knoweldge!!! This puts Debian in a position most software companies find themselves every time they prepare to release... what is the actual legal risk? My understanding is that the opposition to software patents has engendered a belief that ANY risk is too great. For political reasons, this may be the right course of action. However, from a legal perspective, if I were advising a client I would look at the benefits and risks of the issue. Has a software patent ever been enforced against a Linux distriubtion? If it has, what were the results? (I'm guess nothing more that a cease and dissist order). If our concern is with Debian's users, then the issue d-l should be devise a method toappropriatly notify those users of any potential risk involved with their actions (downloading and using mplayer). Let the individual know the full situation upfront and they can make the appropriate call based on their situation. (private users probably won't care... a big company with deap pockets might care a great deal). As a side note, most (if not all) licensing/contract deals with high tech companies have clauses dealing with patent indemnities because the simply truth is you JUST don't know about the patents out there. The assumption is that if you are violating the patent, you'll figure out how to cut a deal with the patent holder. I think the bigger concern with outstanding patents is not with the legal risks or trebble damages, but whether patent encumbered software complies with the DFSG. Seems to me there are all sorts of possible issues there with freedom to modify and distribute. In the course of researching patents possibly violated by MPlayer, one would surely uncover the presence of the same patents in code already in Debian -- the already-mentioned Xine, Avifile, etc. Does not knowing about a bug make it any less of a bug? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: quake2 and german youth protection law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13.06.2005, at 11:37, Mns Rullgrd wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: today I filed bug #313159 against the quake2 package, because of a possible violation of the german Jugendschutzgesetz (youth protection law). The bug report is attached below. Does this only apply to German distributors or to anyone distributing to Germany? (My German is not really up to legal standard and the failure to set a background colour hurts on http://bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/arbeitsgrundlagen/juschg.php ) As far as I've seen, the act does not say anything about this. I can't complain about the style or colors of that page, but the content leaves me none the wiser. Perhaps someone who actually knows German can make more of it. 12 Bildtrger mit Filmen oder Spielen (1) Bespielte Videokassetten und andere zur Weitergabe geeignete, fr die Wiedergabe auf oder das Spiel an Bildschirmgerten mit Filmen oder Spielen programmierte Datentrger (Bildtrger) drfen einem Kind oder einer jugendlichen Person in der ffentlichkeit nur zugnglich gemacht werden, wenn die Programme von der obersten Landesbehrde oder einer Organisation der freiwilligen Selbstkontrolle im Rahmen des Verfahrens nach 14 Abs. 6 fr ihre Altersstufe freigegeben und gekennzeichnet worden sind oder wenn es sich um Informations-, Instruktions- und Lehrprogramme handelt, die vom Anbieter mit Infoprogramm oder Lehrprogramm gekennzeichnet sind. A quick (but quite imperfect) translation: 12 image-containing media with films or games (1) Video tapes with content or other media that are usable for distribution and are programmed for use with video terminals as films or games (image-containing media) may only be made accessible to children or teenagers if the highest state administration or a organization of the FSK (organizations of producers and distributors that classify films and games as dangerous for youth, I'm not sure whether they have to be approved by the gouvernment) has declared them to be suitable for that age and marked them for that age in the procedure defined by 14, paragraph 6, or if they are informational, instructional or learning software which have been declared as informational program or learning program by the provider. (sorry for the sentence constructions - they seem impossible in German, too.) It would be nice to know whether it is game engine or data that is actually the problem, too. In my opinion, the game engine by itself can't be classified in those terms. It contains no inherent depiction of violence, glorification of war, or whatever else is on that list. I am fairly certain that the quake2 engine could be used to create a totally non-violent game. I'm quite sure it's the data after having read the above. This looks like a bug in Germany rather than a bug in quake2. Does the German government have a bug tracking system? Don't think so ;-) Baltasar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCrXyFp2YsmzTbIwYRAoDlAJ9jDGI2w5k3r+7B1TkEl7cf2z46SQCfYXVd 2curH3v+R0XRky9qJTL/ino= =IZU7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
cheap oem soft shipping worldwide
Get software cds and download under $15-$99 http://vhkk.gn2djfg9dqgnvhg.homohedralhj.com The price of seeing is silence. I'm right and everybody else is wrong! See, now everyone's happy! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
* Sean Kellogg :: On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote: flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that you feel hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition? Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the tests are commonly used. http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive policy decisions based on thin air? Nope. Debian-legal only debates the issues and sometimes, if we are lucky, reaches some kind of consensus about them. Who makes the substantive policy decisions about the licenses: the ftpmasters. Then, if any debianer is against those decisions, he/she has access to constitutional remedies. The three thought experiment tests, while nice and good, fail traditional structural tests because they are not rationally based. Absent a rational basis there is no way to disagree with Why aren't they rationally based? I mean, really, they seem pretty rationally based to me. All of the tests (as are the DFSG) are designed to protect the freedom of speech the software freedom is about. them, and absent ammasing a super-majority to change the DFSG to repudiate the tests, they seem to be locked in stone. U.S. Courts, love of 'em or hate 'em, base everything they do two sources: 1) previous decisions, 2) decisions made by elected officials or their appointees. Debian-legal seems to have adopted #1, but failing #2 it chooses instead to insert its own opinion. Which brings us back to the self-selected nature of the group. #2 are the ftpmasters, the debian-legal is a consulting body whose consensus is generally (but not always) followed by ftpmasters. I don't want to be the wacko who just goes off on a long standing system that, all things considered, seem to be working pretty well... but I also know that our the new DPL has made it pretty clear that he wants Debian institutions to be looked at to make sure they are actually doing the Project's work. Perhaps this is the time to seriously consider how debian-legal functions and on what sort of basis it makes decisions. The problem is that you are basing your conclusions in wrong assumptions. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
* Sean Kellogg :: On Saturday 11 June 2005 03:21 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Sean Kellogg wrote: Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive policy decisions based on thin air? No. Debian-legal does not make policy decisions. Debian-legal advises the ftp-masters, who make the actual policy decisions (and, it does seem that they generally agree with our advice). The ftp-masters are appointees of the elected project leader. Well, that's certainly a great deal better, structurally. I guess I've never really seen any ftp-master discussion on this list... but then again, I don't know their names, so I wouldn't really know who was who. But at least there is some amount of accountability. The fact remains that it is far too easy to criticize d-l if operations continue under this system. I've been on this list for almost 4 years, with special attention ever since I entered law school... I know the sort of round-and-round fights that go on here that later get presented in FAQ's as consensus. Do you care giving an example of this, please? I can't think of any. As I said, I've never actually heard an ftp-master agree or disagree with the list... but if I were in their position I would They (ftpmasters) make their voices heard off-list, in a most authoritative way: allowing something to enter the archive or not, or maybe even removing something from Debian. have a hard time accepting advice from a forum who can't point to language that backs their claim. ??! This is kind of offensive IMHO. Can you give examples, too? [And, FYI, if you check the mailing list's archives, you'll find that the currenty project leader helped in drafting some of those tests. So, I suppose, we could probably ask him to give those tests the project's official blessing. However, there does not seem to be any need to do so.] Yes, I know that he was involved with developing these tests, and I know that he takes a very expansive view of the DFSG. My point is not to impinge on the good leader's opinions... only to note that a poor organizational structure can still come to good decisions. More importantly, the DPL does not have authority to state that these tests are extensions of the DFSG. I may not be a DD, but I have read the Constitution :) Maybe your understanding of the Constitution and the Social Contract is the problem (maybe my understanding of them is the problem, too): To know what is and what is not DFSG-free is the job of the ftpmasters, guided by the Guidelines, and (at *their* discretion) aided by discussions on d-l. The FAQs, tests, summaries of d-l discussions exist only to aid d-l itself in further discussing. The dissident test is a good example of something that does not directly influence the ftpmasters but could influence d-l in reaching (partial?) consensus if some software is Free or not. /In/ /casu/, there is a strong feeling that if some software cannot pass the dissident test, it cannot be free software, because the ability to modify and distribute modified versions of the software is impaired (goes against the DFSG). -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
* Marco :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It blatently fails DFSG 5, because the person modifying the software may not have internet access for emailing the changes. (Think perhaps a developing nation.) I still do not believe that this is discrimination against persons or groups. This is an unreasonable interpretation of the original meaning of DFSG.5. I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable interpretation of DFSG 5. Why should you exclude from the Free Software process people that do not have the money to have proper internet access? This *is* the exact meaning conveyed by the word discrimination. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
On Sat, 2005-11-06 at 19:12 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: The Initial Developer will be acting as the maintainer of the Source Code. You must notify the Initial Developer of any modification which You create or to which You contribute, [...] This goes against the Freedom 3 of the FSF's free software defination, and the 3rd clause of the Debian Free software Guidelines. How? Leaving FSF's Freedom 3 out of the picture (unless Debian adopted them at some time), I don't see how requiring the contribution of the modification back to source violates Clause 3 of the DFSG: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. The license allows modification and derived works, and it allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the license. It doesn't say anything about not requiring contribution. The key problem is that if Initial Developer becomes unreachable for any reason, downstream developers will be unable to submit changes, and thus disallowed from exercising the rights granted under the license. Considering the half-life of most software projects, software companies, and email addresses, it can become impossible to contact upstream developers in just 1-2 years. When there's a send-patches requirement, nobody else can pick up the mantle and continue developing the program. I think the suggestion from debian-legal, while the licensor is accessible and is willing to consider revising the license, is to change sending patches back to the Initial Developer to a _request_ rather than a license _requirement_. ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
* Bernhard :: * Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050611 20:05]: The FSF is not in the business of giving truthful advice about the law. Sorry to ask the following, but I am getting really curious and hope you do not feel insulted. But I really have to ask: Are you sponsored by, employed by or otherwise related to Microsoft or any other large company selling non-free software? While I can't speak for Michael, I tought you should know other people (such as myself) agree with him in many of his points, including that one above. And *I* am employed by the Legislative branch of the government of Minas Gerais, Brasil, which is conducting a massive migration to Free Software, and I do not have any financial interest whatsoever involving proprietary software. Furthermore, while IANAL, I *try* to base things I put on d-l in my reasonable knowledge of Brazilian law and legal research (I worked two years as a paralegal, and I have another two years of legal training). -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
On Sat, 2005-11-06 at 14:09 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive policy decisions based on thin air? Pretty much, yes. The decision-making power eventually lies with ftp-masters, but AFAIK they generally accept the consensus on d-l. I think the key point to remember is that there are two ways a license can prohibit exercising the rights required by the DFSG: either implicitly, or explicitly. Explicitly, a license could say: You MAY NOT make or distribute Derivative Works. That's clearly non-free. But a license could also _allow_ making and distributing Derivative Works, but put such a high burden on the licensee as to make the freedom effectively impossible to exercise: You MAY make and distribute Derivative Works provided that You square the circle. You MAY make and distribute Derivative Works provided that You travel faster than the speed of light. You MAY make and distribute Derivative Works provided that You light a cigar with a million-dollar bill. Dot dot dot. It's probably fair, albeit simplistic, to think of requirements in a license as a spectrum between total lack of restriction and total prohibition: |---+| Without Unacceptably Entirely restriction burdensome prohibited The point at which requirements are unacceptably burdensome -- where they effectively prevent exercise of the rights required by the DFSG for some or all people -- is admittedly vague. This is where the tests in the DFSG FAQ come in. They provide a good mnemonic for determining where in the spectrum a requirement lies. If a requirement fails the Dissident Test, for example, that means that it's probably too burdensome to be considered truly free. Note that the tests are for on-the-edge cases; that's the area of the spectrum where we need some help in license analysis, after all. Hope that helps, ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
* Marco :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still do not believe that this is discrimination against persons or groups. This is an unreasonable interpretation of the original meaning of DFSG.5. I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable interpretation of DFSG 5. Why should you exclude from the Free Software process people that do not have the money to have proper internet access? Because this is not discriminating, if they care they can find the money, a sponsor or a different way to contribute. It is Find the money?!?!?!?!?!? *I* personally *do* care, and I couldn't find any money (ok, I found a tenner in the street when I was 15 -- but only once) to finance my involvement in the Free Software. discrimination only if it relates to an intrinsic quality of an individual or group, like you cannot use this software if you are black or you cannot use this software if you are the military. As opposed to you cannot modify nor distribute this software if you are *poor*?. I'm sorry, but I take offense and I think your interpretation is absurd. -- Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RES: Is this license DFSG free?
* Sean Kellogg :: On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sean Kellogg wrote: You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Doesn't this violate the Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian state citizen? No, because the following statement is allowed by the GPL, and does not reveal the identity of the dissident: This file was changed on December 10, 2004. Whether that's allowed by the GPL depends on the interpretation of the phrase stating that you changed the files. Agreed. The setence is ambigous if broken down sufficiently. However, if the Anthony's language is sufficient, it strikes me that the GPL is way too verbose. All you would need the GPL to say to require such a limited changelog would be provide a notice of the date of any change without reference to you. It is interesting the GPL-FAQ has nothing to say about the topic. The GPL is not a statute; its language is not to be read under the hermeneutics principle of each word counts, there is *no* ambiguity, but under the principle of any ambiguity is construed against the licensor, unless he can *prove* that the licensee understood otherwise IMHO. In the case that I am correct, the phrase stating that you changed the files can be read as including: /* I changed this file (Sat Jun 11 2005 12:00PM) */ -- HTH, Massa
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and just to remind you: I am pro-non-crack-smoking-GPL, and have even been known to advocate that it be required as a matter of law For the record, I am not at all comfortable with your characterization of opinions different from your own as crack-smoking. That's fine if you aren't intending to seriously debate those points of view, but you seem to be rather interested in that kind of debate. I recognize that a specific legal case will proceed in a specific and logical fashion, but it's presumptious to assume too much about how a judge will decide on any particular dispute. -- Raul
Re: quake2 and german youth protection law
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Baltasar Cevc wrote: 6 für ihre Altersstufe freigegeben und gekennzeichnet worden sind oder wenn es sich um Informations-, Instruktions- und Lehrprogramme handelt, die vom Anbieter mit ???Infoprogramm??? oder ???Lehrprogramm??? gekennzeichnet sind. A quick (but quite imperfect) translation: if they are informational, instructional or learning software which have been declared as informational program or learning program by the provider. Oh, brilliant. I hereby declare these programs to be Infopgrogram as well as Lehrpgoramm. Seems to satisfy this paragraph completely. Next? Don Armstrong -- This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure. -- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: quake2 and german youth protection law
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does this only apply to German distributors or to anyone distributing to Germany? (My German is not really up to legal standard and the failure to set a background colour hurts on http://bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/arbeitsgrundlagen/juschg.php ) I'm not sure. I will try to look it up in the next days. It would be nice to know whether it is game engine or data that is actually the problem, too. The law deals with media, i.e. the whole Quake 2 CD has been put on the list. I guess the actual problem is that kids could have too much fun with too much sputtering blood, killing human-looking opponents. Probably there could be a version without red blood and with obviously non-human targets that would be acceptable. AFAIK for some other games, special german versions have been created with such modifications. This looks like a bug in Germany rather than a bug in quake2. Maybe... But that's how the law is, see DMCA or whatever. Michael Below -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/13/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record, I am not at all comfortable with your characterization of opinions different from your own as crack-smoking. C'mon, Raul. The crack-smoking GPL refers to an interpretation (non-contract license, functional use results in a derivative work) that I and others have demonstrated to have no basis in law and to be a deliberate attempt to subvert the legal regime surrounding software copyright. As such, it's intended as a bit of humorous hyperbole to lighten the atmosphere surrounding a quite serious topic. I hardly refer to general differences of opinion as crack-smoking. I thought I'd done rather well in responding politely to a polite inquiry as to whether I might be a Tentacle of Evil. I think of myself as representing forthright radicalism within the system, and if you think about it you'll realize why the FSF's deceitful (and, in my opinion, rather amateurish) misrepresentations of the law annoy me so much. It wouldn't be the first time that a much-needed reform got put off for an extra century because the people carrying the banner of reform behaved in a manner repugnant to those who understood that the existing system, while flawed, was better than anarchy. Cheers, - Michael
