Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 19/08/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Granted. But when the question is is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation? their answer is very different from our... :-( That's the main reason I came to debian-legal first. If someone could point me in the direction of a more appropriate forum I would be most grateful. We have so *few* DFSG-free non-programs, that I don't consider this as a minor issue... I'm worried about this possible scenario: * a user comes to us seeking for license analysis or recommendation * we tell her if you are not talking about a Debian (prospective) package, go away * she finds another 'forum' and follows their analyses and recommendations * sooner or later she becomes an author and writes something useful * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended * many other people contribute to her work * an RFP or ITP is filed against that work in the Debian BTS * it's time for debian-legal to check the license * ouch! the work does not comply with the DFSG: must be rejected from main * it's too late to persuade people to relicense: another work is lost Maybe we could have talked to her earlier in this process... :-( I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/08/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But when the question is is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation? their answer is very different from our... :-( We don't really have a shared concept of free documentation distinct from free software because the whole how do I tell if this bitstream is documentation or program debate is rather painful. That's the main reason I came to debian-legal first. If someone could point me in the direction of a more appropriate forum I would be most grateful. I wonder if the freeculture.org groups are good for this? You will find a range of opinions there, but other than the anti-commercial strand, it's not that different most of the time. We have so *few* DFSG-free non-programs, that I don't consider this as a minor issue... I'm worried about this possible scenario: * a user comes to us seeking for license analysis or recommendation * we tell her if you are not talking about a Debian (prospective) package, go away * she finds another 'forum' and follows their analyses and recommendations * sooner or later she becomes an author and writes something useful * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended [...] Well, if she takes advice from one topic and mindlessly applies it to another, that's always going to be painful. Other forums may give bad advice for our use, but we may give bad advice for other uses. I don't suggest a blanket go away is healthy, but I'm really not sure what other forums are out there right now. You write there are few non-program packages. Do you know how few? I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:48:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote: I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. Because they where trying to ride the open source is cool wave with their gaming stuff, and people have been bothering them for ages about stuff like pcgen and others. They don't really come from the software community though, so probably didn't even consider the free software licences. Probably pushed for creation of NWN content and such also. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22 Aug 2005 10:48:13 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if the freeculture.org groups are good for this? You will find a range of opinions there, but other than the anti-commercial strand, it's not that different most of the time. I actually find few people agree that the freedoms that apply to software should similarly apply to other types of work, especially digital works such as documents, images, etc. Only debian-legal really seems to take such a stance, even if there seems to be some disagreement with the list on this point. Otherwise, the FSF doesn't seem to have any similar forums. The closest thing would seem to be your own mailing list. I would also note that the freeculture.org site seems to be down. I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. Neither do I. For future reference I would also note the OGL would seem to have restrictions on using content in software[1] and allows the mixing of copyleft open content and closed content in a manner similar to the invariant sections in the FDL. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22 Aug 2005, MJ Ray wrote: I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. I've complained about the OGL from almost the moment it was introduced. The problem is that the GPL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that you otherwise can't do. The OGL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that are otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt you with baseless lawsuits that we know you can't afford to defend against. Game rules can't be copyrighted (though their specific text can), but the OGL is based around TSR's/WotC's attempt to assert copyright in its game rules and claim that nobody can use them without a license. Something which purports to license you to use game rules can't be DFSG-free. It's like a license to write critical articles, or a license to allow fair use, or a license to breathe air. Part 7 also seems to be unfree because it forbids you from using trademarks in legal ways, but that isn't the biggest problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Monday 22 August 2005 02:45 am, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. Funny story about the Open Game License!!! This summer I intered for Wizards of the Coast in their legal department. During my interview, and before I signed the NDA, we had a brief discussion about the OGL prompted by my statement that I study open source licenses in law school. The following interesting things came out of that discussion. 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. 2) no one at Legal has really looked at the OGL for some time. 3) had my contract money not run out, I was to look over the OGL and suggest how to revamp it to make it more user friendly Unfortuantely, Wizards didn't do so well last quarter and they had to let go a bunch of their contract employees. It's a shame :( -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22/08/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny story about the Open Game License!!! This summer I intered for Wizards of the Coast in their legal department. Your kudos just went up in the gamer community. In some circles, people would happily give up their right arms to inter at Wizard's of the Coast just cleaning the toilets. :-) 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. I think this is a dubious claim: Wizard's claim there are several restrictions for using open content in software, most notably that open content cannot be compiled into binaries. 2) no one at Legal has really looked at the OGL for some time. That is interesting. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:49:57PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 10:48:13 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if the freeculture.org groups are good for this? You will find a range of opinions there, but other than the anti-commercial strand, it's not that different most of the time. I actually find few people agree that the freedoms that apply to software should similarly apply to other types of work, especially digital works such as documents, images, etc. Only debian-legal really seems to take such a stance Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost, badly. Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:09:36PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. I think this is a dubious claim It's so vague that you can claim it about just about anything. Windows is licensed in a similar manner to Linux because the license permits you to run a copy on your computer. 'similar' doesn't really mean anything when talking about licenses. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22 Aug 2005 10:48:13 GMT MJ Ray wrote: Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/08/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But when the question is is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation? their answer is very different from our... :-( We don't really have a shared concept of free documentation distinct from free software because the whole how do I tell if this bitstream is documentation or program debate is rather painful. I'm definitely aware of that. But when someone asks about free documentation, most of us (at least I...) think about free software that can roughly be classified as documentation (recalling that the classification inside software is made up of blurred boundaries and overlapping concepts). FSF folks, instead, think about something different and distinct from free software [read: programs]. That (at least partially) explains why debian-legal and FSF give different answers... OK, I'm going to try and be clearer... :-( If someone asks you which license would you recommend for releasing free documentation?, you understand what she's talking about and suggest the same licenses you would recommend for free programs. Right? Even if we do not draw clear lines to distinguish programs, documentation, images, and so forth, we *know* how to determine whether some piece of documentation is free or not. We apply the same criteria we would use for programs. People at FSF apply different criteria to analyze programs and documentation. And they reach different conclusions... [...] * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended [...] Well, if she takes advice from one topic and mindlessly applies it to another, that's always going to be painful. That's not what I'm talking about, AFAICS. She takes, say, advice on which license is good for a tutorial, and then *writes* a tutorial! Other forums may give bad advice for our use, but we may give bad advice for other uses. OK, but the hypothetical user in question came to us first, maybe because she was seeking good advice from a Debian standpoint. We may give bad advice for other uses, but I think that, if we are here, we are concerned about Debian uses... Anyway, note that, in most cases, what we suggest is not considered non-free by other groups. Simply more permissive than required... For instance, FSF people consider acceptable to prevent users from modifying or removing some secondary parts of a manual. We instead think that this should not be done. But FSF folks do *not* say that a manual *must* have unmodifiable and unremovable parts in order to be free. They simply say that it *may* have them and be free, as long as those parts are secondary... I don't suggest a blanket go away is healthy, but I'm really not sure what other forums are out there right now. If someone wants to know whether something complies with the DFSG, I'm having a bad time in thinking about any other 'forum' but debian-legal... YMMV You write there are few non-program packages. Do you know how few? Not exactly. I've never counted them. My *impression* is that we lack DFSG-free documentation for many topics, while there's much non-free documentation under GFDL, CC-*, OPL, ... licenses. See http://packages.debian.net/non-free-docs.html The same holds for images, music, and so forth. IOW, I feel that the lack of DFSG-free non-programs is more problematic than the lack of DFSG-free programs. At least because other groups push in different directions for non-programs and promote licenses that do not comply with the DFSG... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpSTB6RhzSvA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:47 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost, badly. Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people. Wow. That seemed unnecessarily hostile. I'm not really sure what you think I lost but I thought the Debian Group generally held that the DSFG should similarly apply to documentation. I've still yet to figure out exactly what the Creative Commons stands for but I don't really see them taking a stance similar to free software in a few areas, such as non-commercial licenses. -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 03:07 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: I prefer the more charitable interpretation that you want debian-legal's advice because you think you'll agree more with our viewpoints than with other possible suppliers of license advice. Thank you for the polite summary: your charitable interpretation would indeed be correct. I have to admit to being unfamiliar with any internal disagreement within the Debian Group and I had no wish to stir up any old enmities. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Scripsit Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:47 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost, badly. Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people. Wow. That seemed unnecessarily hostile. I'm not really sure what you think I lost You may not be aware that there's a rather vocal minority within Debian that asserts that the debian-legal interpretation of software freedom does not correspond to the views of the project in general, which (so the minority claims) would prefer a more tolerant stance towards license restrictions, lack of real source code, etc. When you said that only debian-legal really seems to take such a stance, Andrew apparently thought you meant that in contrast to other parts of Debian rather than in contrast to parts of the free software movement outside Debian. That would apparently put you in the aforementioned minority group, which wetm do not have much patience with after several years of flamewars and two project-wide referenda on the matter. I prefer the more charitable interpretation that you want debian-legal's advice because you think you'll agree more with our viewpoints than with other possible suppliers of license advice. -- Henning MakholmWe can hope that this serious deficiency will be remedied in the final version of BibTeX, 1.0, which is expected to appear when the LaTeX 3.0 development is completed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
