Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in binary distributions. [...] I wonder if the licence requirements are the deciding factor. With the increasing criminalisation of copyright infringement worldwide, users may need to show their local police or state agent that they have a valid copyright licence for any copies. How can users do that reliably if the binary distributions aren't reproducing the authors' copyrights? Puzzled, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.
Le Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:10:10AM +0100, MJ Ray a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in binary distributions. [...] I wonder if the licence requirements are the deciding factor. With the increasing criminalisation of copyright infringement worldwide, users may need to show their local police or state agent that they have a valid copyright licence for any copies. How can users do that reliably if the binary distributions aren't reproducing the authors' copyrights? Definitely, licence requirements are not the only deciding factor, but they provide the boundaries, that I would like to document better. In many of the upstream original distribution of our programs, the coverage of all the copyright statements does not reach a 100 % accuracy, and for some of the other binary Linux distributions, this does not seem to be problematic. In our attempt to be perfect, we actually put ourselves into a troublesome situation where if for a version A, debian/copyright is 100 % accurate and for a version B it is missing one name, then we are disinforming our users because we made them rely on us instead on Upstream. What we have to do is to comply with the license, for sure, but to what extent do we want to substitute with Upstream's duties? Do we really want to maintain our own list of all the Linux, KDE and Mozilla contributors? Arent'we taking a responsability that we could avoid by not doing this if the license allows? If Upstream maintains an AUTHORS file, I think that it would be better to ship it and only use debian/copyright as a license summary. And of course, we can sent patches upstream if we find people missing… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:39:26 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] I can re-release under the BOLA license with a WTFPL exemption: ‘To all effects and purposes, this work is to be considered Public Domain, but if you do not agree this is possible, then just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.’ I've already suggested more widely used, well known analyzed licenses. If you are convinced that a public-domain-like situation is actually desirable, then, AFAIK, the best way to achieve it is the Creative Commons public domain dedication [1], or possibly CC0 [2]. [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ [2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode This said, license proliferation is not Buena Onda… License proliferation is indeed a bad phenomenon, that's why I would *not* recommend a license like BOLA: I personally think that it's legally unclear, and almost completely unknown. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp19TFkkL7ti.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a copy of the software (in compiled form). Have a nice day. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpX2nWuTTkqM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. There's little to connect the two forms. If given a bunch of bytes and a bundle of source code, in many cases it would not be easy to say whether one was a compiled version of the other. That makes it rather unlike what most people would mean by “copy”. I think of it more as a translation into another language. It's an automated, mechanical translation though, so unlike most human-language translated works, there's no creativity in the translation step. What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? Perhaps a “transformation” is better. It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a copy of the software (in compiled form). I think it's instructive that the GPL discusses “form of the work”, not “copy”, for this distinction; perhaps in an effort to be clear about this point. -- \“We should be less concerned about adding years to life, and | `\ more about adding life to years.” —Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpGQyGGG1m8q.pgp Description: PGP signature
