Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free - both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in /usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright contain the BSD advertising clause in its exact wording Does OpenSSL have to go to non-free, or do I miss anything? cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free No. Even the FSF considers it free. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: - the 3-clause BSD license is considered free - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free - both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in /usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright contain the BSD advertising clause in its exact wording Does OpenSSL have to go to non-free, or do I miss anything? It's not GPL-compatible. This is not the same as non-free. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: b...@subvert.org.uk web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
I don't think this holds. The advertising clause in the 4-clause BSD
license is GPL incompatible according to ('Original BSD license'):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense
However that doesn't mean work licensed under the 4-clause BSD license
is non-free, which is explicitly mentioned in the link above.
/Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:23:56PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free No. Ah, OK. Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ accordingly? Currently both pages sound as if it the 4-clause BSD licence would not meet the DFSG. Even the FSF considers it free. The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 14:24 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : Even the FSF considers it free. The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... They clearly don’t consider it as a free software license. The FSF argues that documentation doesn’t need the same freedoms as software. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Bug#509287: Please give opinion about Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free
Koen Holtman k.holt...@chello.nl wrote: [...] For Debian I hope that this note will help Debian close Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free. So I would like to invite debian-legal to read the note and discuss what it means for the afio package bug. In general, I am unhappy with how the issues have been paraphrased instead of quoted. I am currently on a train, so cannot refer to the original sources, but some of the issues are represented as slightly different to how I understood them. Why paraphrase? [...] afio has one unique feature (fault tolerant compressed archives) that all of the above lack. So, someone could explain how afio achieves this and someone else could re-implement it in the other more-clearly-free tools. If it is needed, the feature will survive. I didn't feel that anyone was arguing that afio contained absolutely no features people wanted over the other tools when they suggested that afio should be removed. Several FOSS backup packages support afio as an archive engine, and some were designed specifically around afio. Wow. Which ones? Several definitions of 'free' software include the requirement that any party should be able to re-distribute it. For example. Debian Free Software Guideline 1 (DFSG#1) states: However, the DFSG are guidelines for deciding the freedom of software, not a definition. The hint is in the name. If one starts trying to use it as a definition, bad stuff happens, in my experience. In general, I've no problem with the sale restriction because it's trivially avoidable. Issue 3. License does not permit modification [...] 1) Argument by the contents of the license notices I don't buy this argument at all. Anyone got any law to support it? I'd be very surprised if you can extrapolate the holes in the licence permissions like that. 2) Argument by implied licensing This is far more persuasive to me and the references appear good. Even better would be Mark participating in modding afio, but if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. [...4. Relicensing...] Depending on the success in finding the contributers, this could (according an the estimate of the current maintainer) bring about 30-60% of the afio code base under a new license. However, but such an action would not satisfy those seeking legal clarity on the status of afio as a whole. Should impossibility of 100% now deter work on the rest? If we view each piece of unattributed code as a timebomb, it seems to make sense to reduce their number if possible. [...] Issue 6. Several people working for/with FOSS related organizations have called afio not-free. This is a non-issue, a consequence of the above other issues. If the note deals with the points they raise, this is dealt with already and it feels like a personal attack on those people. If the note doesn't deal with their objections, then this feels like a personal attack to try to distract people. Either way, I don't think it should be included in a basic note. [...] I believe that the people in the links above are all using the following rule when applying guidelines for freeness: worst-case-rule: If the license text is ambiguous, in a way that would leave enough room for a judge to disagree that the license meets our written definition of 'free', then the license should be treated as non-free. I don't. I believe people were answering on the basis of the licence information given to them and what they found. If the licensing status is not clear, it needs further research, of the type included in this note. It wasn't obvious to many people why afio should get that work, instead of all the other things which are calling for some work. Big credit to Koen for doing it. However, inventing some sort of fantasy these people hate free software so want to use lawyer tools to kill it rule and attributing it to people who looked at afio's licensing is not nice at all. I believe that the worst-case-rule should not be used by more general Linux distros, unless it is combined with a moderating principle. I believe that the worst-case-rule isn't used by anyone much and not the people in this case, so all reference to that should be removed from the note. Hope that helps, -- MJR My Opinion Only, see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: python-imaging
Ben Finney wrote: Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes: [snip] But that wording is *not* what has been used for ‘python-imaging’. Instead, the wording is: Permission to [foo] for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, I find that wording rather ambiguous, in my mind it could mean any of the following: * You may [foo] for any purpose, without paying a fee * You may [foo] for any purpose, as long as you do so without fee Does anyone else see this ambiguity ? [snip] Cheers, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: python-imaging
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:31:10PM -0500, Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault wrote: Ben Finney wrote: Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes: But that wording is *not* what has been used for ‘python-imaging’. Instead, the wording is: Permission to [foo] for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, I find that wording rather ambiguous, in my mind it could mean any of the following: * You may [foo] for any purpose, without paying a fee * You may [foo] for any purpose, as long as you do so without fee Does anyone else see this ambiguity ? No. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: python-imaging
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:21:48 +1100 Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault j...@x2a.org writes: Ben Finney wrote: Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes: [snip] But that wording is *not* what has been used for ‘python-imaging’. Instead, the wording is: Permission to [foo] for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, I find that wording rather ambiguous, in my mind it could mean any of the following: * You may [foo] for any purpose, without paying a fee * You may [foo] for any purpose, as long as you do so without fee Does anyone else see this ambiguity ? I can see how someone might find it if they were looking for it. I don't see it when I read the clause normally. The meaning of that clause, to me, is clearly: * You may [foo] for any purpose and without charging a fee A license normally will contain a term that specifies the fee due from the licensee to the licensor. In the absence of any other clause (and I don't recall one here) that states such a term, without fee should be read as referring to the cost of the license that is granted and not as a limitation on licensed right to [foo]. If you are looking for something else, I guess you could extract it. As one of my professors liked to say, it is very easy to write what you mean, but what is extremely hard is to write something that cannot mean anything else. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
