Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Hi, The W3C and the HTML WG are currently negotiating a new copyright licence for the HTML specifications, and I would like to get some clarification about whether or not the proposed licence is compatible with the GPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The proposed licence is Option 3, listed here. http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#option3 That licence simply extends the W3C document licence with some permitted exceptions to the restrictions it otherwise imposes. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231 The W3C representatives claim, based on a statement they received by Eben Moglen, that it is compatible with the GPL, but didn't elaborate on, or answer any concerns I've raised. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-psig/2011JanMar/0137.html (W3C Member only link, sorry. It's a forwarded mail from Eben stating that he believes Option 3 to be compatible with GPL v2 and v3.) My concern is that this licence doesn't adhere to the GPL clause 6, which states: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein Nor to the DFSG's No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor statement, and I would like some advice about whether my interpretation is correct or not. The W3C document licence states: No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is granted pursuant to this license. The option 3 amendment carves out 3 exceptions to that for software, supporting materials accompanying software, and documentation of software. This would seem to imply a field of use restriction against anything that is not covered by those 3 exceptions. In particular, this does not explicitly permit others to fork the specification. It should be noted that option 1, presented in the same document, explicitly states: HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited. The W3C's lawyer claims that because Option 3 omits that one statement, there is no explicit field of use restriction and that that is enough for compatibility. Clarification on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/ -- 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/4db94f34.5020...@lachy.id.au
Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:36:37AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote: I'm trying to figure out how transmitting a range of bytes in a torrent is different than transmitting a range of bytes in response to e.g., an FTP REST or an HTTP byte-range request. It's not. Imagine that instead of torrenting the file, you just downloaded it by FTP, then made it available for someone else to get by FTP. I agree that a debian ISO image such as http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.1a/i386/iso-cd/debian-6.0.1a-i386-netinst.iso does not fulfill the 3.a) complete machine-readable source code condition for distribution. Are you saying that nothing inside a (complete) debian ISO image containing GPLv2 software in executable form fulfills either the 3.b) written offer or 3.c) information you received conditions for distribution? That if I give someone a CDR with a debian*netinst.iso burned on it it and nothing else, I'm violating the GPLv2? If so, it seems to me that this is a bug in debian that could be fixed. Once that's fixed, and if you agree that receiving the file divided into distinct packets over a network system, then it seems you'd have to agree that bittorrent distribution is OK too. Jeff -- 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/20110428121458.ga8...@unpythonic.net
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: Hi, The W3C and the HTML WG are currently negotiating a new copyright licence for the HTML specifications, and I would like to get some clarification about whether or not the proposed licence is compatible with the GPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The proposed licence is Option 3, listed here. http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#option3 For posterity, I am attaching the complete copy of the three options. In a followup email I will analyze them. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu Option 1 Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. In addition: * To facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the notice below. HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited. * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1. The notice is: Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). This software or document includes material copied from or derived from [title and URI of the W3C document]. Option 2 Copyright © 2011 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability and trademark rules apply. The W3C Document License applies to this document as a whole; however, to facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document you may: 1. copy and modify, without limitation, any code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, interface definition language, and header text in this document in source code for implementation of the technical specifications, and 2. copy and modify reasonable portions of this document for inclusion in software such as, for example, in source code comments, commit messages, documentation of software, test materials, user-interface messages, and supporting materials accompanying software, all in accordance with good software engineering practices, and 3. include reasonable portions of this document in research materials and publications. You may distribute, under any license, the portions used, copied, or modified in accordance with the terms set forth above. Copying, republication, or distribution of any portion of this document must include the following notice: Copyright © 2011 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). Includes material copied from or derived from [title and URI of the W3C document]. Option 3 Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. In addition: * To facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the notice below. * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1. The notice is: Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). This software or document includes material copied from or derived from [title and URI of the W3C document]. -- 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/20110428.065044.318830237410758434.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu wrote: Option 1 As noted, the clause HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited. makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, so I will not spend any time on any other parts. Option 2 Copyright © 2011 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability and trademark rules apply. The W3C Document License applies to this document as a whole; however, to facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document you may: 1. copy and modify, without limitation, any code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, interface definition language, and header text in this document in source code for implementation of the technical specifications, and 2. copy and modify reasonable portions of this document for inclusion in software such as, for example, in source code comments, commit messages, documentation of software, test materials, user-interface messages, and supporting materials accompanying software, all in accordance with good software engineering practices, and 3. include reasonable portions of this document in research materials and publications. I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows copying and modification of reasonable amounts. It would also be incompatible with the GPL, so I do not understand why Eben Moglen would say that it is compatible. Option 3 Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. In addition: * To facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the notice below. * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1. So what if I want to make derivative works that do not facilitate implementation of the specifications? What if Neal Stephenson writes a GPL-licensed book that includes the standard but modified by an evil megacorp for nefarious purposes? If that is allowed, then I have no problem with this license. Also, I noticed on the page you referenced the summary Summary With this as background, the three licenses can be summarized as follows: * Option 1 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an explicit field of use restriction. * Option 2 Reuse of reasonable portions in software and software documentation to implement the specification consistent with good engineering practices, with no field of use restriction thereafter. * Option 3 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an implicit field of use restriction. If they believe that, then Option 3 is incompatible with the DFSG and the GPL. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- 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/20110428.072728.1952855615795842695.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On 2011-04-28 16:27, Walter Landry wrote: Walter Landrywlan...@caltech.edu wrote: Option 2 ... you may: 2. copy and modify reasonable portions of this document for inclusion in software ... 3. include reasonable portions of this document in research materials and publications. I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows copying and modification of reasonable amounts. It would also be incompatible with the GPL, so I do not understand why Eben Moglen would say that it is compatible. Good point. Option 3 Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. In addition: * To facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the notice below. * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1. So what if I want to make derivative works that do not facilitate implementation of the specifications? What if Neal Stephenson writes a GPL-licensed book that includes the standard but modified by an evil megacorp for nefarious purposes? If that is allowed, then I have no problem with this license. That would be covered by use cases 1 and 10, listed at the bottom of the page [1]. 1. Publishing the full or parts of a specification in a book to be sold. 10. Taking WG deliverables in whole or part and repurposing content into a book that is given gratis or sold on paper or as a digital file. The table in the section How Licenses Meet HTML Working Group Use Cases states for those two use cases, in relation to Option 3: Full: Yes. Portions: Yes, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software. I believe this is because the W3C Document licence by itself explicitly allows redistribution without modification and Option 3 gives an exception that allows for portions only under certain conditions relating to software. So, although I am not a lawyer, if my understanding is correct, then I'd say that your hypothetical GPL'd book scenario would probably not be permitted. Also, I noticed on the page you referenced the summary Summary With this as background, the three licenses can be summarized as follows: * Option 1 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an explicit field of use restriction. * Option 2 Reuse of reasonable portions in software and software documentation to implement the specification consistent with good engineering practices, with no field of use restriction thereafter. * Option 3 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an implicit field of use restriction. If they believe that, then Option 3 is incompatible with the DFSG and the GPL. Thanks. [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#usecases -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/ -- 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/4db97ebf.50...@lachy.id.au
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/banlktimrbpjczeqehw74hemcd+tkvbt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
[I've set reply-to to me, because I'm not subscribed to this list] Karl Goetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand, but i guess we're heading down a tangent by discussing it. No, actually not. Could you include the actual licence terms for the package you are working on, perhaps with its itp bug number? There is not ITP yet, because it depends on the outcome of this discussion. The license terms in question are identical with slicer's -- except for the name of the software. Michael -- Michael Hanke http://mih.voxindeserto.de -- 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/20110428152046.GA11012@meiner
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 13:27:48 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote: This would seem to imply a field of use restriction against anything that is not covered by those 3 exceptions. In particular, this does not explicitly permit others to fork the specification. It seems from the linked pages that one goal of the W3C's current non-Free document licensing is to prevent third parties from forking (say) the CSS3 spec, making random changes (potentially incompatible ones), and publishing the result (as FooCorp CSS 4, perhaps). RFCs have a similar policy and it presents similar problems http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ (although recent RFCs use a BSD-style license for code fragemnts, avoiding some of the bad effects of BCP78). I can see why the W3C needs to discourage forks of its standards, and in particular, avoid misrepresentation of modified versions as the original or W3C-approved version, but I don't think copyright is necessarily the right way to achieve this: making it illegal to distribute modified versions seems a much bigger hammer than is necessary. Holding and enforcing a trademark on the W3C name (as W3C indeed does) seems a more appropriate mechanism? There's nothing to stop a vendor embracing-and-extending a W3C standard without making verbatim copies of any of the W3C's spec wording (e.g. each major browser supports a HTML-like markup language consisting of a W3C-HTML subset plus browser extensions), so it's not clear to me that using copyright like this is particularly effective either. It seems particularly perverse to take legal measures to prevent forking when a reimplemented description of HTML5 is available under a much more permissive license from WHATWG... S -- 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/20110428154810.ga10...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Paul Wise wrote: Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions to use MIT, BSD or CC0. But they are being stubborn with several members remaining opposed to the idea of allowing the specification to be forked, and they came up with their 3 licence options in an attempt to reach a compromise. However, since GPL compatibility is a requirement for the licence, I'm hoping the W3C can be convinced to give up on these alternatives if it can be proven that they are not compatible. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/ -- 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/4db98ab4.2080...@lachy.id.au
Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 17:41:40 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Paul Wise wrote: Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions to use MIT, BSD or CC0. I'm glad to hear it! It may be worth mentioning that since 2008, the XMPP Software Foundation has used a MIT-based license for its specifications: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-ipr-policy/ S -- 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/20110428160657.ga12...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:39:05 +1000 Karl Goetz wrote: On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400 Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote: Dear -legal, I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license that has the following clause: | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a | Contribution) and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data from | (collectively, the Software) constitutes acceptance of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or | use the Software. Does this mean if i disagree with a part of the contribution agreement that I'm not allowed to download it? It seems so. And I do *not* like it at all! [...] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright I assume that this is OK, because the rest of the license only imposes DFSG-compliant constraints. Is that correct? I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand [...] I agree. The Slicer license seems to be an overcomplicated attempt to reinvent a non-copyleft grant, but with lots of obscure restrictions and clauses that (try to) forbid incorporation into copyleft-licensed works, while still allowing incorporation into much more restrictive proprietary works (I still cannot understand how this can be really achieved). I am really disappointed that such a licensing mess ended up in Debian main. :-( -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpgHjcIUU7cz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 13:27:48 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote: This would seem to imply a field of use restriction against anything that is not covered by those 3 exceptions. In particular, this does not explicitly permit others to fork the specification. It seems from the linked pages that one goal of the W3C's current non-Free document licensing is to prevent third parties from forking (say) the CSS3 spec, making random changes (potentially incompatible ones), and publishing the result (as FooCorp CSS 4, perhaps)... ... It seems particularly perverse to take legal measures to prevent forking when a reimplemented description of HTML5 is available under a much more permissive license from WHATWG... Indeed. These and many other arguments have been raised against the W3C's futile resistance to spec forking. See for instance, Mozilla's proposal to use MIT that provides some such rationale. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0696.html But in the interest of not rehashing all of those arguments again here, it's probably best to focus on the narrower question of GPL compatibility. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/ -- 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/4db999fa.4030...@lachy.id.au
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu wrote: Option 1 As noted, the clause HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited. makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, so I will not spend any time on any other parts. Agreed. Option 2 [...] I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows copying and modification of reasonable amounts. Agreed, again. It would also be incompatible with the GPL, I think it is indeed GPL-incompatible, as you say, but... so I do not understand why Eben Moglen would say that it is compatible. ...as far as I understand, Eben Moglen believes Option *3* to be GPL-compatible (see the message that started this thread). Now we are talking about Option 2. Option 3 [...] So what if I want to make derivative works that do not facilitate implementation of the specifications? It seems that you cannot do that. This seems to indicate that even Option 3 fails to meet the DFSG. It also makes Option 3 GPL-incompatible, I would say. What if Neal Stephenson writes a GPL-licensed book that includes the standard but modified by an evil megacorp for nefarious purposes? I would be really looking forward to reading such a novel! Great example! ;-) [...] * Option 3 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an implicit field of use restriction. If they believe that, then Option 3 is incompatible with the DFSG and the GPL. As clarified in other messages of this same thread, the fact is that one of the stated goals is forbidding (incompatible) forks. This is fundamentally in conflict with basic Free Software principles. I think you cannot forbid forks and still meet the DFSG or be GPL-compatible. You can impose some licensing restrictions to forks (as the GPL does), but you cannot forbid a fork, just because it is too different from the original or something like that. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgppPk7OB5qqy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:41:40 +0200 Lachlan Hunt wrote: Paul Wise wrote: Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions to use MIT, BSD or CC0. These are great suggestions, indeed! Please, please, please, persuade the W3C to adopt well-known and widely adopted Free Software licenses for the standard descriptions! But they are being stubborn with several members remaining opposed to the idea of allowing the specification to be forked, and they came up with their 3 licence options in an attempt to reach a compromise. This is really sad. However, since GPL compatibility is a requirement for the licence, I'm hoping the W3C can be convinced to give up on these alternatives if it can be proven that they are not compatible. As I said, I believe the currently proposed options are GPL-incompatible. I hope the final decision will be to adopt a simple and good Free Software license (such as the Expat/MIT). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpAyvqlMdP0f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Option 2 [...] I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows copying and modification of reasonable amounts. Agreed, again. It would also be incompatible with the GPL, I think it is indeed GPL-incompatible, as you say, but... so I do not understand why Eben Moglen would say that it is compatible. ...as far as I understand, Eben Moglen believes Option *3* to be GPL-compatible (see the message that started this thread). Now we are talking about Option 2. Actually, in the referenced web page http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html there is the claim Views within the PSIG differ on how each license satisfies each use cases. The primary sources of disagreement relate to one's view of the following: * the GPL-compatibility of a license. Note: Eben Moglen has stated that he considers Options 2 and 3 to be GPL-compatible. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- 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/20110428.103336.2267662035371215801.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote: Are you saying that nothing inside a (complete) debian ISO image containing GPLv2 software in executable form fulfills either the 3.b) written offer or 3.c) information you received conditions for distribution? That if I give someone a CDR with a debian*netinst.iso burned on it it and nothing else, I'm violating the GPLv2? Debian doesn't distribute any GPLed works under 3b or 3c for precisely this reason. If you want to give someone Debian, you should give them the multi-arch DVD image. (Or alternatively, give them the opportunity to pick up a set of sources on some image.) If so, it seems to me that this is a bug in debian that could be fixed. Fixing it for random third parties is very difficult, and not something that Debian wants to be on the line for maintaining, especially for unreleased architectures. You yourself are of course free to produce a written offer. Don Armstrong -- One day I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time. -- Steven Wright http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- 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/20110428173357.gv23...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: [...] ...as far as I understand, Eben Moglen believes Option *3* to be GPL-compatible (see the message that started this thread). Now we are talking about Option 2. Actually, in the referenced web page http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html there is the claim Views within the PSIG differ on how each license satisfies each use cases. The primary sources of disagreement relate to one's view of the following: * the GPL-compatibility of a license. Note: Eben Moglen has stated that he considers Options 2 and 3 to be GPL-compatible. Ouch! :-( I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out! This makes things even more puzzling than before. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp5EWjTADKjo.pgp Description: PGP signature
NASA Open Source Agreement
I've asked the OSI license mailing list about this, and I wanted to get the Debian take on it. I didn't see this discussion anywhere else on this list already. Sorry if I missed it. The OSI has approved version 1.3 of the NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA), but the FSF has a problem with section 3, paragraph G of the license. The issue that the FSF cites is as follows: The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your “original creation”. Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this. Here's a link to the NOSA v1.3: http://opensource.gsfc.nasa.gov/documents/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.pdf I noticed that WorldWind (which was released under the NOSA) is in the non-free repository. It has also been explained to me that this could be because the WorldWind Java repositories are closed, and not necessarily because of the license. In general, it sounds like there is not a consensus on whether or not the NOSA is actually a free software license. I was wondering if the NOSA is indeed considered by the Debian community to be a non-free license, and if so what would need to be changed to get NOSA licensed software out of the non-free repositories. The discussion on the OSI list is here: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:17058:201104:kpokeidhhkjmdjmkjknd And notes on licensing issues from the 2011 NASA Open Source Summit are here: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1TagS_gwDhDfxjr7WpG78_aIcfoPO1tMXBPeCMEE3-Uspli=1 What got me started researching this was an idea that was posted on NASA's IdeaScale page: http://opennasaplan.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Revise-NOSA-to-become-more-free/123641-7200 Any thoughts? Thanks, Jeremy -- 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/BANLkTi=pw6s-yxzgoyaju1tdmuhyhju...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:20:46 -0400 Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote: [I've set reply-to to me, because I'm not subscribed to this list] Karl Goetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand, but i guess we're heading down a tangent by discussing it. No, actually not. Could you include the actual licence terms for the package you are working on, perhaps with its itp bug number? There is not ITP yet, because it depends on the outcome of this discussion. The license terms in question are identical with slicer's -- except for the name of the software. Ah, i see. I'll follow up to Francesco's message then. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:46:04 +0200 Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:39:05 +1000 Karl Goetz wrote: On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400 Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote: Dear -legal, I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license that has the following clause: | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a | Contribution) and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data from | (collectively, the Software) constitutes acceptance of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or | use the Software. Does this mean if i disagree with a part of the contribution agreement that I'm not allowed to download it? It seems so. Thanks for confirming my suspicion about it. And I do *not* like it at all! I guess the next question becomes, 'Is it permissible'? I tend to feel it isn't, but it wasnt challenged when itpd[1], and the ftpmasters are clearly ok with it as its in the archive. Any other regulars want to comment on this issue? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500841 thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: NASA Open Source Agreement
Firstly, it would be much better if they used an existing, well-understood free license rather than reinventing the legal wheel. Secondly, I was under the impression that all US Government works are supposed to be public domain, under what circumstances is this license used? Third, I quote the full license below for the archives: NASA OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT VERSION 1.3 THIS OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) DEFINES THE RIGHTS OF USE, REPRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, MODIFICATION AND REDISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN COMPUTER SOFTWARE ORIGINALLY RELEASED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AS REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY LISTED BELOW (GOVERNMENT AGENCY). THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, AS REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCY, IS AN INTENDED THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF ALL SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTIONS OR REDISTRIBUTIONS OF THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE. ANYONE WHO USES, REPRODUCES, DISTRIBUTES, MODIFIES OR REDISTRIBUTES THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE, AS DEFINED HEREIN, OR ANY PART THEREOF, IS, BY THAT ACTION, ACCEPTING IN FULL THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT. Government Agency: _ Government Agency Original Software Designation: __ Government Agency Original Software Title: User Registration Requested. Please Visit http://__ Government Agency Point of Contact for Original Software: ___ 1. DEFINITIONS A. “Contributor” means Government Agency, as the developer of the Original Software, and any entity that makes a Modification. B. “Covered Patents” mean patent claims licensable by a Contributor that are necessarily infringed by the use or sale of its Modification alone or when combined with the Subject Software. C.“Display” means the showing of a copy of the Subject Software, either directly or by means of an image, or any other device. D. “Distribution” means conveyance or transfer of the Subject Software, regardless of means, to another. E.“Larger Work” means computer software that combines Subject Software, or portions thereof, with software separate from the Subject Software that is not governed by the terms of this Agreement. F.“Modification” means any alteration of, including addition to or deletion from, the substance or structure of either the Original Software or Subject Software, and includes derivative works, as that term is defined in the Copyright Statute, 17 USC 101. However, the act of including Subject Software as part of a Larger Work does not in and of itself constitute a Modification. G. “Original Software” means the computer software first released under this Agreement by Government Agency with Government Agency designation __ and entitled _, including source code, object code and accompanying documentation, if any. H. “Recipient” means anyone who acquires the Subject Software under this Agreement, including all Contributors. I. “Redistribution” means Distribution of the Subject Software after a Modification has been made. J. “Reproduction” means the making of a counterpart, image or copy of the Subject Software. K. “Sale” means the exchange of the Subject Software for money or equivalent value. L. “Subject Software” means the Original Software, Modifications, or any respective parts thereof. M. “Use” means the application or employment of the Subject Software for any purpose. 2. GRANT OF RIGHTS A. Under Non-Patent Rights: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, each Contributor, with respect to its own contribution to the Subject Software, hereby grants to each Recipient a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license to engage in the following activities pertaining to the Subject Software: 1. Use 2. Distribution 3. Reproduction 4. Modification 5. Redistribution 6. Display B. Under Patent Rights: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, each Contributor, with respect to its own contribution to the Subject Software, hereby grants to each Recipient under Covered Patents a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license to engage in the following activities pertaining to the Subject Software: 1. Use 2. Distribution 3. Reproduction 4. Sale 5. Offer for Sale C. The rights granted under Paragraph B. also apply to the combination of a Contributor’s Modification and the Subject Software if, at the time the Modification is added by the Contributor, the addition of such Modification causes the combination to be covered by the Covered Patents. It does not apply to any other combinations that include a Modification. D. The rights granted in Paragraphs A. and B. allow the Recipient to sublicense those same rights. Such sublicense must be under the same terms and conditions of this
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
Michael Hanke m...@debian.org writes: | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a | Contribution) and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data from | (collectively, the Software) constitutes acceptance of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or use | the Software. I find these terms to be somewhat ambiguous. If the requirement to accept the license before download applies only to downloads from the orginal site, I think this is fine. However, when they try to enforce downstream to present the license as an EULA before downloading, then I think this is not acceptable. Maybe not as a direct violation of the DFSG, but Debian provides no option to present an EULA before downloading packages, so distributing the software might even constitute contributory copyright infringement. Hendrik -- 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/87ei4lkg2p@mid.gienah.enyo.de
Re: NASA Open Source Agreement
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: Firstly, it would be much better if they used an existing, well-understood free license rather than reinventing the legal wheel. Indeed. I believe the French government standardized on CECILL, which can be trivially converted to GPL. Secondly, I was under the impression that all US Government works are supposed to be public domain, under what circumstances is this license used? The US Government often acquires copyrighted code from contractors. There is actually some verbiage in this license about that (Section 3B). As for the license, the only troublesome section I found is the one mentioned (3G) G. Each Contributor represents that that its Modification is believed to be Contributor’s original creation and does not violate any existing agreements, regulations, statutes or rules, and further that Contributor has sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this Agreement. There is an interesting interaction with a different section 3I I. A Recipient may create a Larger Work by combining Subject Software with separate software not governed by the terms of this agreement and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such case, the Recipient must make sure Subject Software, or portions thereof, included in the Larger Work is subject to this Agreement. So if you combine things together, then it does not have to be an original creation. It seems that the only time that 3G comes into play is if you modify existing code. So if your friend makes a modification, you can not pass off that modification as your own. Essentially, copyright notices have to be correct. However, it is awfully confusing, and I am not certain that my analysis would be compelling in court. I worry a bit more about the words does not violate any existing agreements, regulations, statutes or rules which means that you can not do anything against the law. So dissidents in Cuba could not modify NOSA code to get around the censorship. I would think that the US Government would not want to give Cuba more tools for oppression. As for Debian, I do not remember what decision the Debian FTP masters made about these types of clauses. In any case, it would be a million times better for NASA to reuse an existing license. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu
