Re: ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence v0.1

2010-02-14 Thread Walter Landry
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
 (b) For Source Code and executable versions of any Derivative Works that
 You create for external use to your organization, the following notice
 must be provided at the top level (e.g. main screen of an application)
 This application is based on the ISDA CDS Standard Model (version x.x),
 developed and supported in collaboration with Markit Group Ltd. where
 x.x refers to the version of the ISDA CDS Standard Model on which Your
 Derivative Work is based. It is understood that a work that includes
 data derived from calculations that have been attained by using the ISDA
 CDS Standard Model, and is not Source Code or an executable version of
 any Derivative Work that You may create for external use to your
 organization, shall not be subject to the provisions of this Section.

This seems similar to the requirement in the GPL to display
Appropriate Legal Notices.  However, it specifies the exact text
that must be used, so it is a bit more restrictive.  I do not know
what the ftpmasters will think of it.

 6. Indemnity for Use of ISDA CDS Standard Model in Derivative Works.
 
 You hereby agree to indemnify Licensor for any liability incurred by the
 Licensor as a result of the distribution, purchase, sale or use of Your
 Derivative Work.

The view of the ftpmasters on indemnification are still a mystery to
me.  My copy of

  /usr/share/doc/xserver-xorg-video-v4l/copyright

has

  11. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages
  arising, directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights
  under this License.  Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold
  harmless Silicon Graphics, Inc.  from and against any loss,
  liability, damages, costs or expenses (including the payment of
  reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of Recipient's use,
  modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Software
  or out of any representation or warranty made by Recipient.

so either xserver-xorg-video-v4l has to be removed or the ftpmasters
think it is ok.

 9. Acceptance and Termination.
 
  (a) Except as provided in subparagraph (b) of this Paragraph, this
  License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically
  if You fail to comply with terms herein and fail to cure such breach
  within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach.
 
 (b) If, at any time, You expressly assented to this License, that assent
 indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance of this License and all
 of its terms and conditions. If You distribute or communicate copies of
 the ISDA CDS Standard Model or a Derivative Work, You must make a
 reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent
 of recipients to the terms of this License.

This is a bigger issue.  Requiring explicit assent for licenses is not
something that Debian generally does.  It is possible to do it (the
sun-java packages require you to agree to the licence), but it is
unprecedented for a license in main.

 10. Termination for Patent Action.
 
 This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
 exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the date
 You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim, against
 Licensor or any licensee alleging that the ISDA CDS Standard Model or a
 Derivative Work infringes a patent. This termination provision shall not
 apply for an action alleging patent infringement by combinations of the
 ISDA CDS Standard Model or a Derivative Work with other software or
 hardware.

I remember this kind of clause being controversial at one point, but I
think that the ftpmasters don't have a problem with it.

 12. Miscellaneous.
 
 This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter
 hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable,
 such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it
 enforceable. This License shall be governed by New York law provisions
 (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise),
 excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. With respect to disputes in
 which at least one party is a citizen of, or an entity chartered or
 registered to do business in, the United States of America: (a) unless
 otherwise agreed in writing, all disputes relating to this
 License(excepting any dispute relating to intellectual property rights)
 shall be subject to final and binding arbitration, with the losing party
 paying all costs of arbitration; (b) any arbitration relating to this
 Agreement shall be held in New York City, under the auspices of JAMS/End
 Dispute; and (c) any litigation relating to this agreement shall be
 subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Southern
 District of New York, with venue lying in New York County, with the
 losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court
 costs and reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. The application of the
 United Nations 

Re: ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence v0.1

2010-02-14 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:53:39 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:

 Guillaume Yziquel guillaume.yziq...@citycable.ch writes:
 
  I've noticed a software with a custom licence.
 
 Which software work is that?
 
  Seems to roughly adhere to DFSG (section 4 and 6 may not...):
 
  http://www.cdsmodel.com/cdsmodel/cds-disclaimer.page
 
 For reference in this thread, here is the text of the license found at
 that URL at the current time:

Thanks, Ben.

 
 =
 ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence
 
 Version 1.0
[...]
 4. Attribution Rights.
 
 (a) You must retain in their original locations, in any copies of the
 ISDA CDS Standard Model,
[...]
 (ii) all copyright, patent, or trademark notices from the Source Code of
 the ISDA CDS Standard Model, as well as any notices of licensing and any
 descriptive text identified therein as an Attribution Notice.

This sounds like the infamous GFDL's Invariant Sections: if I
understand correctly, any descriptive text which is identified as
an Attribution Notice must be preserved in its original location and
(it seems) cannot be modified.
If the clause really means this, then I think any software package
licensed under these terms fails DFGS#3, whenever it includes such
attribution notices.


I also share the doubts and objections expressed by Walter Landry in
his reply.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html
 Need some pdebuild hook scripts?
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpifWHMK9q2m.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-14 Thread Joachim Wiedorn
Hello,

Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
 
 No, it violates DFSG §3.
 
If the package violates DFSG, so it should be moved to non-free archive.
Because the package d4x does not have an maintainer (it is orphaned
again) Who can do this? Should it do the QA group? Or can it be an NMU?
I maintain Debian packages only since three months, so I don't want do
it by myself.


Fondest regards,
 Joachim Wiedorn



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-14 Thread Joachim Wiedorn
Hello,

Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote:

 ie; Not even a Debian Maintainer can modify the software to package it.  So
 this software looks like a non-starter for inclusion in Debian, even in
 non-free.
 
So what is the right way? Who can / must decide this? If non-free is
not possible, 'd4x' must be removed from debian archives ...

On the other side 'd4x' was distributed by Debian since more than 6
years. There are some users ...


Fondest regards,
 Joachim Wiedorn



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-14 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:18:57PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn a écrit :
 
 /*WebDownloader for X-Window
  *
  *Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim
  *This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it
  *without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified
  *program but you can distribute unmodified program.
  *
  *This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
  *but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
  *MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  */

Dear Joachim,

it looks to me like the erroneous author's summary of the Artistic licence,
that forbids to redistibute modified versions of the program under the same
name without the approbation of the author unless some special actions are
done.

But while I do not think this makes the package non-free, that it is abandonned
upstream gives another good reason to remove the package. Does it provide
functionalities that are not found in other packages?

(the answer to this question is off-topic on debian-legal, so if necessary
continuing that part of the discussion in the bug report would be preferable).

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100214232732.ga9...@kunpuu.plessy.org