Why not use a non-us section for program with patent problems in US?
Hi debian-legal! [ While I occasionally read debian-legal, I might have missed previous discussions on this matter. If you have references to such threads, please give them. ] AFAIK in large parts of the world, e.g. in Europe, software patents are not recognised. Debian has previously used a non-us section (physically hosted in the Netherlands, I think) to work around the U.S. restrictions on export of software implementing strong cryptography. Why not use a similar solution in order to make availble software that is encumbered with patent problems in the U.S. but not elsewhere? -- Hans Ekbrand signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OSSAL/CC license of xMule parts
On 3 Oct 2006, at 05:13, Daniel Leidert wrote: Hello, I'm currently preparing an updated xMule package and found a statement, which sounds a bit problematic. But I'm not a lawyer, so I ask you. E.g. xLibs/DynPrefs/DynamicPreferences.cpp states: // This file is dually licensed under the terms of the following licenses: // * Primary License: OSSAL - Open Source Software Alliance License // * Key points: // 5.Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. // binary or object form, etc.) must not be linked to software that is // released with a license that requires disclosure of source code // (ex: the GPL). // * Secondary License: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License v1.0 // * Key Points: // * No Derivative Works.You may not alter, transform, or build upon // this work. // // * Special exceptions: // I, Theodore R.Smith, hereby grant, as the sole author of this library, // exclusive permission to the xMule Project to distribute and link to this // library, specifically voiding clause 5 of the OSSAL for the xMule Project. // As a further exclusive permission, when linked to the xMule Project, // the terms of the GPL concerning binary distribution must be observed. // None of these licenses is DFSG-free, the exceptions can't make the library DFSG-free. Based on the statements given, I think this library conflicts the DFSG. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] proposed: We believe that the draft CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses appear to be Free Licenses, so that most works licensed under them will probably satisfy the DFSG. Please note that Debian evaluates the freeness of each work independently. Issues beyond copyright licensing sometimes come into play. And particular licensors may specify different interpretations of the license text. So this statement does not mean that Debian will automatically consider every work licensed under these licenses to be free. Add: The licensor's/licensors' interpretation of the distribution restrictions about restricted media for part of the work may be vital. -- 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: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If it is a license from the copyright holders, than the only ones who can sue Debian for distribution of sourceless GPL'ed works are, er, the people who originally gave out those works in that form. I understand there is some contention around whether this claim is accurate (and I claim no deep understanding of international copyright and contract law to make a claim for either side), but I think that is the fairly simple counter argument. [...] While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as amended, under the criminal liability heading. http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm I suspect most of the EU has similar law these days, although I cannot name them. By the way, we could be sued by the copyright holders of any firmware which has been reproduced without permission: that is, the copyright holders are not those issuing them under GPL. I remind aj that I am not a lawyer, but have been punished for copyright mistakes in the past, so learnt about 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: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
MJ Ray wrote: While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as amended, under the criminal liability heading. http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm I suspect most of the EU has similar law these days, although I cannot name them. You're correct, there is criminal liability in most of Europe for intentional infringement of copyright. Many countries do however require the copyright holder to file charges against the infringer first. The police won't act by itself (how could they, they have no evidence of an illegal act unless the copyright holder files the accusation of distribution without a license). I do wonder, are the copyright holders of the firmware the only people with standing to sue? If the combination of firmware and GPL-licensed kernel is a derivative of the kernel, then anyone with a copyright interest in the kernel can sue for not obeying the GPL. 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: Why not use a patended section for programs with patent problems?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:55:15AM +0200, Hans Ekbrand wrote: Hi debian-legal! [ While I occasionally read debian-legal, I might have missed previous discussions on this matter. If you have references to such threads, please give them. ] I found the recent thread on the matter (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00083.html). In that thread I did not found any argments against my proposal, though. AFAIK in large parts of the world, e.g. in Europe, software patents are not recognised. U.S., Japan, Germany and UK seems to be problematic countries, so non-us might not be the proper name, patented might be better. The name of such a section is of course not the important thing. The current sitution means that debian restricts itself more than it has to. Debian could give users in many, but not all countries, access to popular technologies (in particular mp3, mpeg-2 and mpeg-4 encoders), but doesn't. Why not? -- Hans Ekbrand (http://sociologi.cjb.net) [EMAIL PROTECTED] A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:10:37PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: MJ Ray wrote: While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as amended, under the criminal liability heading. http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm I suspect most of the EU has similar law these days, although I cannot name them. You're correct, there is criminal liability in most of Europe for intentional infringement of copyright. Many countries do however require the copyright holder to file charges against the infringer first. The police won't act by itself (how could they, they have no evidence of an illegal act unless the copyright holder files the accusation of distribution without a license). I do wonder, are the copyright holders of the firmware the only people with standing to sue? If the combination of firmware and GPL-licensed kernel is a derivative of the kernel, then anyone with a copyright interest in the kernel can sue for not obeying the GPL. Please check past debian-legal discussion about this. IANAL and everything, but all times we discussed the issue the opinion that prevaled, was that the firmware do not constitute a derivative work of the kernel, in the same way that if the firmware is contained in a flash on the card, it does not constitute a derivative work of the kernel, and in the same way a free compressor which can generate compressed archive with builtin uncompressor binaries, is not a derivative work of the compressed files it contains. More arguments on this can be found in the list archive. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why not use a patended section for programs with patent problems?
Hans Ekbrand wrote: The current sitution means that debian restricts itself more than it has to. Debian could give users in many, but not all countries, access to popular technologies (in particular mp3, mpeg-2 and mpeg-4 encoders), but doesn't. Why not? Fabian Greffrath and I are working on something similar, but we're not yet done. Thanks for your patience. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
[Cross posting cut out, because this isn't particularly germane to the other lists.] On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote: IANAL and everything, but all times we discussed the issue the opinion that prevaled, was that the firmware do not constitute a derivative work of the kernel, This is true when they're separate; the question is whether the kernel+firmware is a derivative work of the kernel, or mere aggregation. [It's well within the realm of copyright law to prevent putting the firmware with the kernel in a single package, so you have to activate the aggregation clause to avoid having the GPL apply as well.] The arguments for mere aggregation are that it's trivial to separate out the firmware into a separate file; the arguments against is that the kernel stops functioning as well when the firmware is no longer included. While I think this is grey enough not to lose too much sleep over for those firmware which are not licensed under the GPL, it's definetly not clear cut at all one way or the other. in the same way that if the firmware is contained in a flash on the card, it does not constitute a derivative work of the kernel, and in the same way a free compressor which can generate compressed archive with builtin uncompressor binaries, is not a derivative work of the compressed files it contains. These examples are not similar at all, because you're not distributing them together. Don Armstrong -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
