Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do that. Agreed. The original DFSG used to reflect pretty well what was the consensus about freedom in the free software community (not just Debian). While patch clauses are indeed highly annoying they have always been widely considered free, both in and outside Debian. It's unfortunate that, after trying for years to subtly change its meaning, newcomers now are proposing to radically remove some of its balances. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
For once I agree with Alexander - you've read the preamble, not the license, and usually the preamble does not have any legal force. Andrew On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I am not authorized to offer a legal opinion, but the above is a common sense, practitioner oriented reading of the terms of the GPL. Except that you were mostly reading the manifesto part of the GPL which doesn't belong to TC operative for that license agreement (let's assume acceptance arguendo) and is as irrelevant as another part (#SEC4 link you seem to like so much) that follows the TC. regards, alexander. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Care to post a link to rules of New York? It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up. In this type of offence it sorta goes the other way around: let Moglen back up some of his fraudulent legal claims like the GPL is not a contract (no need to upper case disclaimers aside for a moment). Here's an example. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/af75f708f55b4f5a (PTRAVEL is a practicing IP lawyer and litigator) So this guy disagrees with Moglen, therefore Moglen is wrong and a fraud, based on what? His credentials? Moglen is also a practicing IP lawyer as well as a law professor. Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too. http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004301.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004306.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004308.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004309.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004321.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004353.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004358.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004384.html regards, alexander.
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Matthew Garrett: Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't looks astonishingly bad? Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually? (Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.) Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for changing views at the drop of a hat. For example, changing position and letting the project sell stuff near the end of http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00091.html even though saying we used to say that we wouldn't compete with debian retailers, but now we've decided that we will looks astonishingly bad. I don't think looking bad is a good reason not to re-evaluate a position, but let's honour past agreements until obsoleted. Personally, I think some patch clauses are free enough to allow the four freedoms, although most are a nuisance in practice. I'm happy to discuss that: why not? -- 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]
object code in the GPL and printed copies
Hi, since I couldn't find it in the archive, I have to ask here: Has it been discussed, and if yes to what end, whether a printed version (of a GPL'ed document) would be object code as treated in section 3, , | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: ` On the one hand, treating printed copies of the work just the same as any digital compiled version sounds logical and in the intent of the license. On the other hand, a book or booklet is something very different from a PDF or PostScript file, and probably more so in the view of lawyers and judges than ordinary netizens. Therefore an alternative interpretation could also be used: That paper copies of the document are not addressed at all by the license (and can therefore be more restricted by the copyright holder, like for non-commercial use only). And of course, the main concern why I ask this here: If an author intents their documentation to be as freely usable as their program (and therefore wants to license it under the program's license), but wants to restrict commercial trade of the printed version, and therefore assumes the second interpretation, would such a document qualify for Debian (main, of course)? TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Care to post a link to rules of New York? It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up. In this type of offence it sorta goes the other way around: let Moglen back up some of his fraudulent legal claims like the GPL is not a contract (no need to upper case disclaimers aside for a moment). Here's an example. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/af75f708f55b4f5a (PTRAVEL is a practicing IP lawyer and litigator) So this guy disagrees with Moglen, therefore Moglen is wrong and a fraud, based on what? His credentials? Moglen is also a practicing IP lawyer as well as a law professor. Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too. http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004301.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004306.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004308.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004309.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004321.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004353.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004358.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004384.html Beside that, quote Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html is simply legal nonsense. ** Here's an email exchange with RMS: I assume, however, that at least some people want the GPL to be binding--nothing can make it binding except a claim of contract. http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html -- the respondent's email address resolves to: MICHAEL H. DAVIS, (Professor of Law) Cleveland State University. Education: Occidental College (B.A.,1967); Hofstra Law School (J.D., 1975); Harvard Law School (LL.M., 1979). ** Perhaps further consideration should be given to: (A``non-contractual copyright permission'' would be some sort of license that does not involve a contract I suppose, but that is not a well defined term.) http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-Februa ry/000641.html -- the respondent's email address resolves to: PETER D. JUNGER Professor of Law Emeritus Case Western Reserve University College: Harvard College, A.B. 1955 Law School: Harvard Law School, LL.B. (magna cum laude) 1958 ** How about this: The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license simply describes the type of contract it is. http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss at openso urce.org/msg01522.html -- the respondent's email address resolves to: ROD DIXON J.D. LL.M. Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden, New Jersey, Fall 1999 to present. EDUCATION: LL.M. (with Distinction), Georgetown University Law Center, 1998. J.D., George Washington University Law School, 1992. M.A., University of Pittsburgh, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1986. B.A., University of Pittsburgh, College of Arts and Sciences, 1984. ** Doesn't anyone outside the academic legal community harbor any suspicion that the GPL is broken? Eben Moglen has propounded specious legal theories without ever citing relevant case, statute or other legal authority supporting his stance on the validity of the GPL and his claim that it is not a(n) (invalid) contract. Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't he come forward with the appropriate legal citations? Moglen is a J.D. with a Ph.D. in history and not an LL.M. He would not even be accepted as qualified for Professorship at many institutions. What qualifies his word alone as legal authority? /quote regards, alexander.
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant. The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Computer programs can be expressed in either source code or object code. Source code is the computer program code as the programmer writes it, using a particular programming language. Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, § 321.01. Source code is a high level language that people can readily understand. Object code is the representation of the program in machine language [binary] . . . which the computer executes. Id. at § 321.02. Source code usually must be compiled, or interpreted, into object code before it can be executed by a computer. Object code can also be decompiled into source code. Source code and object code are two representations of the same computer program. For registration purposes, the claim is in the computer program rather than in any particular representation of the program. Id. at § 321.03. However, source code created by decompiling object code will not necessarily be identical to the source code that was compiled to create the object code. regards, alexander.
IBM Public License
Hi, I'm new to the whole debian packaging movement. So, please excuse me if I ask a question, which is already answered. I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 ( http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-ipl.html ). Can I get troubles if I package this software for Debian? Is this license approved? Thank you, Stephan Michels.
Re: GPL v3 Draft
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn't anyone outside the academic legal community harbor any suspicion that the GPL is broken? Eben Moglen has propounded specious legal theories without ever citing relevant case, statute or other legal authority supporting his stance on the validity of the GPL and his claim that it is not a(n) (invalid) contract. No idea about that, but I'd like to point out that the world is larger than just the US. A german court has stated that the GPL is valid in Germany, and that it is to be treated as a (valid) contract. Or rather as the Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen; if you go to a shop and buy something, not only the individual words you talk with the shopkeeper (how much is that shirt? 20 Euro Here you are) are part of the contract, but also a non-individual legalese text if it can plainly be seen at the cash desk, or if you are referred to it in an online-shop. The german original text is at http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant. The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The copyright act is WRONG. A computer program can NEVER be a SET of statements or instructions..., a computer program has to understood as a SEQUENCE of statements or instructions Feel free to submit a patch inserting the word ordered. Is this the only grief GNUspeakers have with copyright on computer programs? No. But this one is enough to expose the incompetence of self-aggrandizing, sophist, self-serving lawyers and lawmakers. Not required to accept the license in order to receive a copy of the program (no contract is created, still) 183 contract law schemes in the world...can't standardize globally...RMS statement against global copyright system. We use it because its there. BERN + WTO not a good thing. The fellow really needs to go to clinic. regards, alexander. In the world GNUspeakers are set to build, you are the one who needs to go. If you want nothing to do with such endeveour, go troll somewhere elese. -- Prof. Pedro Antonio Dourado de Rezende /\ Ciencia da Computacao (61)3072702-212 / \ Universidade de Brasilia, DF, Brasil /\ ?http://www.cic.unb.br/docentes/pedro/sd.htm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM Public License
Stephan Michels writes: Hi, I'm new to the whole debian packaging movement. So, please excuse me if I ask a question, which is already answered. I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 ( http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-ipl.html ). Can I get troubles if I package this software for Debian? Is this license approved? There are packages in main that are under this license -- postfix is one example. Some people (myself included) object to things like the waiver of jury trial included in it, but I would not expect you would see any problems. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant. The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The copyright act is WRONG. A computer program can NEVER be a SET of statements or instructions..., a computer program has to understood as a SEQUENCE of statements or instructions I wouldn't be too sure that set doesn't have a different meaning to lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists. Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine sequence to include conditional execution and loops. Bad laws can not change the nature of the symbolic realm, where computer programs exist. For one thing, GNUspeakers know that realm better than self-aggandizing, sophist lawmakers and lawyers. This statement is probably both right and irrelevant. We're dealing here with legal aspects of creating a Linux distribution, and therefore the language and thinking of lawyers does and should have an impact on the outcome of the discussion... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/18/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf I know. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00088.html Pls read that message in its entirety (and also follow the links and read the linked stuff as well, and do it recursively ;-) ) before starting writing a reply (if any). As for US, http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf The standard for PI under copyright infringement claim includes presumption of irreparable harm. The judge didn't apply it (and used a contract standard instead). Note also portion breach of contract claim and didn't cure the breach wording (you just can't cure a copyright violation). Finally, that decision is tagged as Nature of Suit: 190 and that's neither 820/840 nor 190/820/840 (all three). http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/documents/natsuit.pdf 190 is CONTRACT/Other Contract 820 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Copyrights 840 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Trademark regards, alexander. P.S. I must say that I disgust Welte's efforts for his legal ignorance and because his attorneys (the gang from ifross/jbb) try to advance the idiotic theory under which the GPL'd works are exempted from the doctrine of exhaustion (equivalent of 17 USC 109 in Europe).
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Frank Küster writes: I wouldn't be too sure that set doesn't have a different meaning to lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists. Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine sequence to include conditional execution and loops. Regardless of what copyright law defines a thing to mean, contracts are free to define the terms they use, and where such a definition is given directly or via parol evidence, it supercedes (within the scope of that contract) the definitions found in statute or copyright office policies. Michael Poole
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Typically that's the presumption (since object code is not source), but that's really a question of law rather than the DFSG (i.e., get a lawyer if it's important to you). It's important to me as a maintainer of a Debian package with some documents licensed with non-free licenses (GFDL, CC Attribution non-commercial blabla) - naturally I'd rather persuade the authors to relicense their documentation than remove it. But I need a thorough understanding of the problems of documentation licensing to be able to do this. And of course I can't afford a lawyer, but an opinion of a couple of people more acquainted to law stuff than I am would maybe also help. Maybe I should ask the FSF... Ah, I see. As for the DFSG, I don't see how a license that did not permit distribution of paper copies could be free. Whether it's source or object code, it's still a version of the work, and so the freedoms of the DFSG are still important (possibly with the string of source distribution attached). I don't think that this is entirely clear. Hrm. This sort of goes back to the whole debate about the meaning of the term software. Many (including myself, if it matters) think that the most reasonable interpretation of software is as opposed to hardware. This would imply that the paper the document is printed on is not software, but the words on the page are. (Of course one could argue that the printed words are analogue rather than digital, etc., ad infinitum. And one could argue that a prohibition against printing is a restriction placed on the bits on the HD as well. Thus are flame wars spawned.) In the end, of course, not everyone is going to agree. And frankly, I think that's the more important issue. Many people who use debian are going to assume that they don't suddenly lose the freedoms of the DFSG just because a document has been printed on paper rather than recorded on a CD. And if Debian is going to decide otherwise, it should be as big and noise-making a decision as the whole bit about documentation was -- perhaps even louder. Otherwise, I believe that we would be violating our commitments to our users. In so far as we're talking about the GPL, though, the software/hardware issue doesn't enter into the discussion. I still think it's quite a stretch to believe that the GPL gives one the right to restrict paper copies. I have not yet made up my mind on this, so I'm just writing down some thoughts here: - Some people view intellectual property as bad (unethical, hindering development, or whatever) in any field, but other Free Software people do not claim this. For them, it's rather the particular field of computer usage, with software, documentation, and possibly hardware that makes Freeness so important - be it for ethical or for practical reasons - while in other fields - like arts or literature - copyright is acceptable or even welcome. Since Debian and the DFSG are about Software, we cannot assume that everybody is of the first type. I agree -- except that I would note that one could believe that free licensing for stuff is good (even outside of the computer field) without thinking that IP is necessarily bad. - Software and its documentation is work in progress most of the time. While an author might be willing to release a computer-related documentation to the public in its current form, this does not imply that they in fact think the work is fit for publicaton in form of a book, which is much more static, and which many people expect to be much better proof-read, typographically optimized etc. than is usual for a documentation PDF generated from texinfo, xml or the like. Furthermore, it's often not clear from the typeset text who is responsible for which content (only available in the CVS/SVN/... log and in source files), a point that might be deemed crucial by authors who have a reputation to loose. If I start contributing to a widely used documentation project *because* I find its present state inacceptable, I'd rather not see the intermediate product published as a book with my name (among others) on it... I doubt that we would be violating the spirit of the DFSG if we allowed authors to restrict printing because of such considerations. Just because something is a legitimate goal doesn't mean that it's in keeping with the spirit of the DFSG to write it into a license. Within the free software world it is often expected that we use more community-oriented mechanisms for achieving such ends (e.g., peer pressure, polite requests, etc.) By using softer, more nuanced methods (as opposed to the very hard and blunt tool of licensing) we permit more freedoms and get more done. Generally the concern with documents goes the other way: folks want to make sure that paper copies can be distributed in classroom environments
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the end, of course, not everyone is going to agree. And frankly, I think that's the more important issue. Many people who use debian are going to assume that they don't suddenly lose the freedoms of the DFSG just because a document has been printed on paper rather than recorded on a CD. And if Debian is going to decide otherwise, it should be as big and noise-making a decision as the whole bit about documentation was -- perhaps even louder. Otherwise, I believe that we would be violating our commitments to our users. Got your point. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're not? You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch clauses? If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in the list archives. No, you've described why they cause practical inconvenience. You haven't described why everyone else ever was wrong. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Michio Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually? (Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.) Nngh. Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for changing views at the drop of a hat. For example, changing position and letting the project sell stuff near the end of http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00091.html even though saying we used to say that we wouldn't compete with debian retailers, but now we've decided that we will looks astonishingly bad. You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that changing our minds on things is bad. I'm saying that diverging from the rest of the community for no good reason looks bad. It's hardly as if patch clauses were badly understood when the DFSG were written. There's no way you can claim Oh, they didn't know what they were talking about. The people who wrote this document considered the issue and decided that the practical implications were not sufficiently offensive to avoid describing them as free. Since then, the practical freedoms provided by patch clauses have increased. Altering the DFSG would be a clear redefinition of our stance on freedom, and there would be no way that anyone could argue that it was in any way in line with community consensus. Do I think that would look bad? Yes, I do. The DFSG should reflect reality, like our website should do. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] My preferred name is you -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Plonk. regards, alexander.
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant. The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The copyright act is WRONG. A computer program can NEVER be a SET of statements or instructions..., a computer program has to understood as a SEQUENCE of statements or instructions Pedro, which definition of object code should I use instead? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Ironies abound
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be affected. Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and /usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much help. -- Henning Makholm Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation which is different from that which the user had in mind. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d after an hour or two's thought. The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative works, it causes endless trouble. Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license. So here it is: 7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and receive copies of the work. This leverages the careful definition of propagate up top, so that it avoids restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license. A restriction along these lines would mean that (1) it imposes no restrictions on the *writers* of derivative works (2) If you've already distributed (or offered to distribute) the work to all its users (the normal case and the troublesome one for the original clause), you have no additional obligations (3) making the program available for users over the Internet (or on a local server) -- if and only if that requires a copyright license, which it probably does -- requires that you provide access to the source code to those users, according to the usual GPL v3 clauses regarding distributing copies. What do other people think of this? It's sort of a forced distribution clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing to use the program. If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have this replace the proposed (7d). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too. *plonk* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
On 1/18/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Well, the draft for GPL v3 says: Object code means any non-source version of a work. Everyone seems to like this. So in GPL v3 it will be very clear that a printed copy is object code. How fascinating. The courts will enjoy this amusing insanity too. regards, alexander. P.S. Let the press know, Nerode. You can make some $$$.
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too. *plonk* And how long is your plonk? Longer than Pool's one? regards, alexander.
Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol
* Package name: php-net-imap Version : 1.0.3 Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP * License : php license You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1] your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting that they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed up by extensive debian-legal discussion. They were explicitely invited to either modify their rejection criteria, or continue the debian-legal debate, both of which they have failed to do. I am now re-extending that invitation. Charles 1. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html -- A guy Who wants To middle-aisle it Must never scratch His little violet Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1947/a_guy signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Nathanael Nerode wrote: The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative works, it causes endless trouble. That perfectly describes my problem with the clause as written. Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license. So here it is: 7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and receive copies of the work. This leverages the careful definition of propagate up top, so that it avoids restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license. A restriction along these lines would mean that (1) it imposes no restrictions on the *writers* of derivative works (2) If you've already distributed (or offered to distribute) the work to all its users (the normal case and the troublesome one for the original clause), you have no additional obligations (3) making the program available for users over the Internet (or on a local server) -- if and only if that requires a copyright license, which it probably does -- requires that you provide access to the source code to those users, according to the usual GPL v3 clauses regarding distributing copies. What do other people think of this? It's sort of a forced distribution clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing to use the program. If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have this replace the proposed (7d). I believe this clause addresses the issue perfectly, and I agree with proposing it as a replacement. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Nathanael Nerode wrote: 7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and receive copies of the work. This sounds a lot better. I would suggest using work based on the Program to re-use that definition as well. Also, how about just to receive copies and add under the terms of this License. Or maybe refer to the article that allows you to make copies. Then you nicely catch all the other requirements that you have to fulfil (storage medium, written offer, etc). And this just occurs to me: do I need to have a world-readable /usr/src if I let people log into my system and use a tool that is GPLv3 with 7d enabled? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1] your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting that they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed up by extensive debian-legal discussion. They were explicitely invited to either modify their rejection criteria, or continue the debian-legal debate, both of which they have failed to do. I am now re-extending that invitation. Charles 1. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html Hi Thanks for the information. I haven't noticed it before because I saw various packages in Debian using the PHP license. I told my sponsor to wait with the upload. I will ask him for upload when PHP license is DFSG compatible or tell him to drop it if the project disagree with the PHP license. Nevertheless i think the project should make a decision. Waiting for it now ... Greetings and thanks for info Steffen pgp7KwJFCC2mr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Clause 7d
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d after an hour or two's thought. The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative works, it causes endless trouble. Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license. So here it is: 7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and receive copies of the work. If all you are trying to do is make the clause more palatable, then I agree that this is an improvement. But I still think it is not free. Please define user. In particular, consider these mails http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00805.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00856.html Cheers, Walter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d after an hour or two's thought. The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative works, it causes endless trouble. Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license. So here it is: 7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and receive copies of the work. This leverages the careful definition of propagate up top, so that it avoids restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license. Neat, although a little hard to understand at first without the context of what it's referring to (Affero-like clauses). I certainly like it a lot more than the original, though, for all of the reasons you cited. What do other people think of this? It's sort of a forced distribution clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing to use the program. If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have this replace the proposed (7d). I like it, and I think it should be definitely be submitted to the FSF for consideration. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:18:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: But in that case, you might find it more fruitful to discuss this clause with the FSF itself rather than with debian-legal. Well, I'm not discussing these things here to try to get the weight of this would make Debian call the GPLv3 non-free, since the GFDL showed just how much weight that holds with the FSF. I do want to know what others here think about these things, though, and to let anyone who agrees with these things to lend their voice to fixing them. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
Frank Küster wrote: Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant. The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The copyright act is WRONG. A computer program can NEVER be a SET of statements or instructions..., a computer program has to understood as a SEQUENCE of statements or instructions I wouldn't be too sure that set doesn't have a different meaning to lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists. Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine sequence to include conditional execution and loops. Apologizing in advance for the length of this reply, I may say I'm afraid this thread is only getting noisier. Lawyers and lawmakers ought not pretend to be writing words for which meanings have been settled for millenia ( SET, SEQUENCE), to mean differently in their writings just when their incompentence to use them gets exposure. About the above doubt, please consider: An instruction, whether jumpable (such as 'goto', 'if', 'loop') or non-jumpable (such as 'move_data', 'add_integers'), is an element from a finite set of instructions defined by a model of hardware or by a lower level language. That is, defined by objects that give expression to a computer program in their corresponding object code. Such a set of instructions is defined by rules on how instructions can be coded by bits (syntactic rules), and rules on how instructions cause the object (in case of low level language, an interpreter program) to behave while interpreting instances of these instructions (semantic rules). The syntax for a jumpable instruction is just like the syntax for any other instruction: it says that an instance of the instruction is to be formed by a certain sequence of bits, the identity and lengtht of which can be determined from inspection. An object code is formed by the finite set of instructions (sequence of bits) obeying the object's syntactic rules, plus the semantic rules. The semantic rules are those rules which tell how instances of such instructions shall be interpreted by one such object. An instruction is determined to jump, or not to jump, only at the semantic level, by semantic rules. If a semantic rule dermines that some instance of a jumpable instruction, while being interpreted, is not to jump, the next instructon to be interpreted shall be, like with non-jumpable instructions, the following instruction. The concept of 'following instruction' comes as a feature of the von-Neumann architecture, used to build the commodity hardware in use since the begining of digital programmable computers. Thus, for the purpose of this discussion (author's right to distributable software), the rules of an object code assume that a program is formed by a SEQUENCE of instructions. Since the semantic rules for jumpable instructions have to refer to positions where they are to jump if the instance's context so determines, this can only be achieved by references to marks or distances (in bytes) over the sequence of instructions. Therefore, in the formation of an object code, adherence to syntactic rules, which determine those marks and distances through the sequence, have to precede the interpretation of semantic rules, which refer to them. Therefore, in the von-Neumann architecture (today's commodity computers) the sequencing of instructions can not be extricated from the concept of 'computer program', a fact that can be tested as follows: what happens if I show you a bag filled with bits (a lawyer's definition of 'SET of instructions'?), and tell you this is a program in object code, and ask you show me the jumps!. What can you do? Without knowing what object that code is for, you (or anyone else, for that matter), nothing. You can not tell which instances of instructions in that bag may cause, or not cause, the execution of the program to jump when intepreted. In fact, you can neither tell if an instruction is jumpable or non-jumpable. Actually, you can not even tell where an instance of instruction begins or ends. You, or any object, can only hope to do any of these things if the bag's content is first parsed into a sequence of instances of well-formed instructions, if the object is a commodity hardware or computer language used at large since the begining of digital programmable computers. Thus, in such a context, any object code pressuposes, at a minimum, that a program written to be interpreted by its objects shall be construed as a (finite) sequence of instances of instructions, from the (finite) set of syntactically well-formed instrucions. Refering to computer programs by its form or expression, that is, as sequences of instances of instructions from some object
Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...} What do other people think of this? I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to deem now compatible. The OSI approval (I just pray that someone submits it) will be fun. regards, alexander.
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away. Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof. regards, alexander. P.S. author's right has really little to do with distribution. First Sale, y'know.
Re: object code in the GPL and printed copies
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away. Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof. I guess our Prof has a lecture. Just to save Prof's time: once you add concurrency into play (and copyright concurrent computer programs), an ordered set of instructions becomes pretty unordered. regards, alexander.
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:41:05 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote: Bas Zoetekouw wrote: Hi Glenn! You wrote: 3. Digital Restrictions Management. As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy [...] IMO, this is a clear violation of DFSG 6. If we allow terrorists to use our code, and allow it to be used in biological weapons research, clearly also black hat hackers must be allowed to use it to produce spyware. It seems particularly hypocritical in light of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html: It's indeed a hypocrisy masterpiece... :-( -- :-( 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 pgp2ipqcjVbUB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:13:18 +0100 Jacobo Tarrio wrote: d) Distribute the Object Code by offering access to copy it from a designated place, and offer equivalent access to copy the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the Object Code. It's nice that they include this because it's theoretically not permitted in GPLv2, and that's how Debian (and everyone else) distributes its stuff :) It was in fact permitted by GPLv2... See GPLv2, section 3., last paragraph: | If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering | access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent | access to copy the source code from the same place counts as | distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not | compelled to copy the source along with the object code. -- :-( 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 pgpL05gwAHZ0k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:26:47 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote: I'm in favor, in principle, of being allowed to make anonymous changes. So do I! The right to make anonymous changes is indeed an important one. -- :-( 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 pgpNeVvC9GEog.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL v3 Draft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data. It sounds like this means if your GPL application accesses data, you grant a GPL license to every other application that accesses the data. Not quite -- it says you give general permission for other applications to be distributed under the GPL. Which means that when someone does reverse engineer your stuff, and puts it in a GPLed app, you can't then say You don't have permission to do that because you're violationg my patents|the DMCA -- because you've already given them the permission you claim they don't have. I am not disagreeing with you here, but my main issue with this paragraph in the license is that it can just not be true. GPG is an effective way of encrypting communications, and having the license say otherwise does not change that. OK, there's a subtle issue here which could be cleared up with a small change in the license. Effective technological protection measure is supposed to mean Effective technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution. This is what it means in the DMCA, which is what the clause is referring to. GPG is not in fact an effective way of doing that, since an encrypted copy is still a copy (and can be decrypted given some computing power). What constitutes an effective technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution? Well, I suppose at first glance a locked safe might be. Or a password-protected site might be. There is obviously no such thing as an effective technological protection measure which prevents copying or distribution of data *while* providing access to it. I'm not even sure there is such a thing as an effective technological protection measure for preventing copying and distribution *at all*. Safes can be cracked (and if you own the safe, it's your right to do so, unless you have a contract with someone where you agreed not to); password-protected sites can be accessed by the hardware administrator (who again usually has the right to do so). So, if clearly restricted to measures for preventing copying and distribution, this clause may in actual fact be *true*. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Glenn Maynard wrote: No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse. The only counterarguments I've ever seen are: - code reuse isn't important (often thinly veiled as eg. you don't really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it), and - if you really want to reuse code, you can create a complex, massively impractical patching system to handle it (and I'm not convinced that's even possible, when two separate patch-clause code bits end up mashed closely together). Incidentally, I think you're right about this; I don't really see how to distribute a single file in the form of a patch to TeX and a patch to, say, an old release of Qt (under their patch clause) simultaneously. If I put the Qt code into the patch to TeX, I violate the Qt license; if I put the TeX code into the patch to Qt, I violate the TeX license; if I do neither, I violate both licenses. Have you heard argument three? A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically prohibits code reuse in the same way. This sucks, but we consider it Free (while discouraging it). Patch clauses suck in the exact same way, so we should consider them Free too (while discouraging them). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
You might consider putting a line of blank space between quotes and your reply, like everyone else does; it makes it easier to read. On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:08PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I can understand that the source for those things might be tricky, but often images are flattened photoshop files or (with non-free tools) rendered graphics, or music converted midi files. Yes, these are classic must provide source to be free software cases. Er, no they're not--classic, that is. Whether we want source for them or not, it's an issue that's only been given much attention relatively recently, so let's not start calling it classic. Programs are the classic case. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Translation of a license
Tobias Toedter wrote: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify\n it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by\n the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at\n your option) any later version.\n \n This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but\n WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of\n MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU\n General Public License, /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, for more details\n This isn't the license, its just an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. [GPL 2c]. Nothing about 2c says this notice must be in English, and indeed considering the purpose of 2c, I'd suspect it *should* be translated. I agree with Henning Makholm here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Have you heard argument three? A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically prohibits code reuse in the same way. This sucks, but we consider it Free (while discouraging it). Patch clauses suck in the exact same way, so we should consider them Free too (while discouraging them). The difference is that such a license is at least compatible with itself: if you put your software under the same license, or something almost guaranteed to be compatible (eg. public domain), you can reuse the code. Patch clauses aren't even compatible with themselves: putting your work under the same license doesn't fix it. Also, a license incompatible with other licenses wouldn't cause problems like can't put the code in CVS. I have trouble viewing any software under a license that prohibits the use of ordinary source control as a valuable contribution to free software. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3 Draft
Nathanael Nerode wrote: Effective technological protection measure is supposed to mean Effective technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution. I think the DMCA actually speaks about access to the work (17 U.S.C. 1201): (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (...) And access is defined such that I don't think it covers copying of the protected work: (3) As used in this subsection-- (A) to circumvent a technological measure means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure effectively controls access to a work if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
