Implicit granting of rights? (was: Bug#363061: tetex-extra: palatcm.sty is non-free)
Hi debian-legal, Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 15:14 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: , | %%% Copyright (C) 1994 Aloysius G. Helminck. All rights reserved. | %%% Permission is granted to to customize the declarations in this | %%% file to serve the needs of your installation. However, no permission | %%% is granted to distribute a modified version of this file under | %%% its original name. ` That would be just on the right side of the border set by DFSG #4 (note that it's a TeX input file, so it is both source and used form), but But it doesn't even allow use - don't know whether this is implicitly granted? I would vote for implicitly granted usage rights, but IANAL. Can we in fact assume such implicit granting of rights? It seems logic to me, because there are no needs of your installation if all I may do is meditate over the contents of the file. But I'm not sure whether what seems logic to me is logic in IP law... TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: clarification of doc licensing for db3/db4.2
(Top posting to continue current flow) I've added the DPL to the CC list. aj: do you have an opinion here, or do you think its worth delegating this decision to someone? See #256332 and the debian-legal archive for background. On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:46:02PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: Ask the new DPL (aj) I guess. andrew On 4/10/06, Mike Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dann wrote: Thank you for your offer. I think a relicensing would be the cleanest approach. Note that I am a Debian Developer, but I do not speak for the db packaging, release, or legal teams. I hope that they'll jump in if they are in disagreement with any of the statements I've made here. This is going to be some work for me. Oracle's legal department has been very helpful on our open source requests so far, but it's a large team and is not familiar with this issue yet. I'll need to find, then brief, then extract approval from, the right people here. Before I do that, can I get some kind of authoritative statement from Debian that the effort is necessary, and that it will satisfy the concerns that have raised this issue for the second time? I want to be helpful, but I want to be sure we are solving the problem here. To that end, direction from db, release or legal -- whoever can speak for Debian -- would be good. mike -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#256332: clarification of doc licensing for db3/db4.2
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:37:40AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: dann frazier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Though it maybe feasible to drop older db versions from the next release (I do not know if such plans exist), I believe we would still need to resolve this in an update to the current stable release (sarge). Aren't documentation bugs sarge-ignore? I'm not sure how this would meet something like http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.1r2/ and so be included in a stable update. I would classify this as a legal/licensing issue, not a documentation issue. -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license status
Hello, I found a few references in the archives regarding cc-by-sa, but the comments on [1] seem to be outdated, can/will this page be updated with comments on the 2.5 version of the licenses? Since some of the debian-legal people are in contact with CC [2], do you have any idea of a timeframe in which the cc-by and cc-by-sa licenses will be DFSG-free? Am I correct that I currently cannot upload anything that is licensed cc-by-sa-2.5? Thanks in advance, Adriaan Peeters [1] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00192.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FW: Proposal: Remove GPL boilerplate at the top of every G2 file]
Michael Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there any reason to keep the ~865 byte header in each file? The GPL text says: : It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most : effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have : at least the copyright line and a pointer to where the full notice : is found. To me, the main cost if it is removed is uncertainty and risk of playing 'hunt the licence' later on, especially if some contributors retain their copyright. Please abbreviate it, not remove it. -- 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: cube-data package
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:39:26 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: Gonéri Le Bouder wrote: [...] What i want to do: From source: - cube-client - cube-server From data: - cube-client-nonfree - cube-server-nonfree - cube-data Seems reasonable. If enough Free data existed to play the game (even with a vastly reduced dataset), you could split the data into cube-data and cube-data-nonfree packages, and put the Free client and server in main. An alternative could be persuading upstream to relicense both engine (client+server) and data in a DFSG-free manner. For instance, everything could be re-released under the ZLIB license (and provided with source code, of course!). Let's not give up before even trying! Cube looks impressive, but there are other games that are both technically good *and* DFSG-free: I don't see a reason why Cube should of course be non-free... -- :-( 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 pgpTwbE0ePg7L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cube-data package
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 12:52, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:39:26 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: Gonéri Le Bouder wrote: [...] What i want to do: From source: - cube-client - cube-server From data: - cube-client-nonfree - cube-server-nonfree - cube-data Seems reasonable. If enough Free data existed to play the game (even with a vastly reduced dataset), you could split the data into cube-data and cube-data-nonfree packages, and put the Free client and server in main. An alternative could be persuading upstream to relicense both engine (client+server) and data in a DFSG-free manner. For instance, everything could be re-released under the ZLIB license (and provided with source code, of course!). Let's not give up before even trying! Cube looks impressive, but there are other games that are both technically good *and* DFSG-free: I don't see a reason why Cube should of course be non-free... Cube data files copyright are hold by a large amount of contributors. The majority of the works are under non free licenses. Relicensing is IMO a very hard task. I've important difficulty to contact just 2 authors... I can't imagine the work is it to contact every authors... For a license list see: http://goneri2.free.fr/cube/ Regards, Gonéri
Re: cube-data package
On 4/18/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:39:26 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: Seems reasonable. If enough Free data existed to play the game (even with a vastly reduced dataset), you could split the data into cube-data and cube-data-nonfree packages, and put the Free client and server in main. An alternative could be persuading upstream to relicense both engine (client+server) and data in a DFSG-free manner. For instance, everything could be re-released under the ZLIB license (and provided with source code, of course!). Let's not give up before even trying! Really? Follow this thread: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-April/000831.html Cube looks impressive, but there are other games that are both technically good *and* DFSG-free: I don't see a reason why Cube should of course be non-free... -- :-( 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 -- Regards, EddyP = Imagination is more important than knowledge A.Einstein
Re: cube-data package
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:09 +0300 Eddy Petri__or wrote: On 4/18/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] An alternative could be persuading upstream to relicense both engine (client+server) and data in a DFSG-free manner. For instance, everything could be re-released under the ZLIB license (and provided with source code, of course!). Let's not give up before even trying! Really? Follow this thread: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-April/000831.html Geeez... Thanks for the pointer and sorry for having suggested what has already been tried. I think we don't need another hostile and aggressive upstream for Debian. At this point, MHO is: better look for a different game and forget about Cube... Thanks for giving it a try. P.S.: No need to Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is among recipients. Thanks. -- :-( 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 pgp1W6evCpMLK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cube-data package
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:25:47 +0200 Gonéri Le Bouder wrote: On Tuesday 18 April 2006 12:52, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] An alternative could be persuading upstream to relicense both engine (client+server) and data in a DFSG-free manner. For instance, everything could be re-released under the ZLIB license (and provided with source code, of course!). Let's not give up before even trying! [...] Cube data files copyright are hold by a large amount of contributors. The majority of the works are under non free licenses. Relicensing is IMO a very hard task. I've important difficulty to contact just 2 authors... I can't imagine the work is it to contact every authors... I see. Thanks for having tried hard to have a reasonable discussion with the main author. And, above all things, thanks for clarifying the (horrible) licensing status of a game that I used to wrongly believe to be free. -- :-( 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 pgpsLpMcS7J6H.pgp Description: PGP signature
What does disclaiming a copyright mean?
Dear debian-legal subscribers, As I am not a native speaker, I face difficulty of understanding the following sentence: Burkhard Morgenstern hereby disclaims all copyright interest in DIALIGN, written by Burkhard Morgenstern and Said Abdeddaim. It is from the licence of the dialign program, which you can read here: http://charles-miroir.plessy.org/debian/dialign-2.1.1/license/LICENSE.TXT Does in mean that B. Morgenstern abandons his rights to S. Abdeddaim ? Thank you a lot for your help, -- Charles Plessy Wako, Saitama, Japon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What does disclaiming a copyright mean?
Disclaiming a copyright means releasing into the public domain. (as in no copyright at all). IANAL, but looking at what the license file says, I would assume it to be copyrighted by Said Abdeddaim and released under the LGPL, but the parts written by Burkhard Morgenstern are PD. andrew On 4/19/06, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear debian-legal subscribers, As I am not a native speaker, I face difficulty of understanding the following sentence: Burkhard Morgenstern hereby disclaims all copyright interest in DIALIGN, written by Burkhard Morgenstern and Said Abdeddaim. It is from the licence of the dialign program, which you can read here: http://charles-miroir.plessy.org/debian/dialign-2.1.1/license/LICENSE.TXT Does in mean that B. Morgenstern abandons his rights to S. Abdeddaim ? Thank you a lot for your help, -- Charles Plessy Wako, Saitama, Japon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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: What does disclaiming a copyright mean?
Andrew Donnellan writes: Disclaiming a copyright means releasing into the public domain. (as in no copyright at all). IANAL, but looking at what the license file says, I would assume it to be copyrighted by Said Abdeddaim and released under the LGPL, but the parts written by Burkhard Morgenstern are PD. I disagree. This paragraph is boilerplate from the GPL (in the section on applying the GPL's terms and conditions to your own work). I believe the goal is to have a third party (like an employer) state that it does not have a copyright interest in a work, so that other people can rely more easily on the licensor's statement that the licensor licenses the work under the GPL. The goal of the copyright disclaimer would then be to reduce uncertainty about whether the employer might later claim copyright (perhaps because the program could be considered a work made for hire or perhaps because the employer's contract with the employee normally gives the employer rights in programs written by the employee) and then try to apply terms inconsistent with the GPL terms to it. The person who issues a copyright disclaimer is not saying that there is no copyright -- just that he or she doesn't claim any copyright. I don't know if there are court cases that interpret the effect of this disclaimer in various jurisdictions. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | This is a new focus for the security http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | community. The actual user of the PC http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | [...] is the enemy. | -- David Aucsmith, IDF 1999 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What does disclaiming a copyright mean?
On 4/19/06, Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan writes: Disclaiming a copyright means releasing into the public domain. (as in no copyright at all). IANAL, but looking at what the license file says, I would assume it to be copyrighted by Said Abdeddaim and released under the LGPL, but the parts written by Burkhard Morgenstern are PD. I disagree. This paragraph is boilerplate from the GPL (in the section on applying the GPL's terms and conditions to your own work). I believe the goal is to have a third party (like an employer) state that it does not have a copyright interest in a work, so that other people can rely more easily on the licensor's statement that the licensor licenses the work under the GPL. I'll disagree further - Burkhard Morgenstern is a professor at the University of Gottingen, and he is listed specifically as one of the authors. If it was an employer disclaiming copyright interest, wouldn't it be done by an authorised representative of a company/organisation? andrew The goal of the copyright disclaimer would then be to reduce uncertainty about whether the employer might later claim copyright (perhaps because the program could be considered a work made for hire or perhaps because the employer's contract with the employee normally gives the employer rights in programs written by the employee) and then try to apply terms inconsistent with the GPL terms to it. The person who issues a copyright disclaimer is not saying that there is no copyright -- just that he or she doesn't claim any copyright. I don't know if there are court cases that interpret the effect of this disclaimer in various jurisdictions. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | This is a new focus for the security http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | community. The actual user of the PC http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | [...] is the enemy. | -- David Aucsmith, IDF 1999 -- 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
