Re: Local community license issue
Le Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 07:35:02PM +0200, Victor Nitu a écrit : Is the GNU GPL a decent enough license to be applied to our contributors' work? Or any CC variant? What shall I answer to their question, as a community website co-founder? Dear Victor, if you and the other contributors are not worried that your works will be used in proprietary derivatives, it may be most simple to take extremely liberal licenses, like the Unlicense, or to explore the way the Translation Project does, that is to promise to not exert copyrights. http://unlicense.org/ http://translationproject.org/html/whydisclaim.html 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120108091050.gd1...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Local community license issue
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 06:10 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: if you and the other contributors are not worried that your works will be used in proprietary derivatives, it may be most simple to take extremely liberal licenses, like the Unlicense, or to explore the way the Translation Project does, that is to promise to not exert copyrights. http://unlicense.org/ http://translationproject.org/html/whydisclaim.html Charles, I think if you're looking for a public domain statement for the Translation Project, I'd use the C0 instead of Unlicense. The C0 license is endorsed by the FSF and will likely be listed as a valid open source license by the OSI. By contrast, the Unlicense is viewed by some legal professionals as being quite problematic. There was a brief mention of Unlicense on the OSI's license-review list this past week, here's a quote from Rick Moen: | I hadn't seen Unlicense before now, but my immediate impression is that | it's not well formed and should be avoided. | | Its first sentence professes to put the covered work into the public | domain. However, then the second sentence professes to grant reserved | rights under copyright law. However, who is granting those rights, the | erstwhile copyright holder who, one sentence earlier, professed to | destroy his or her own title? | | By contrast, CC0 states explicitly that the current copyright holder | is attempting (I paraphrase) to the extent permitted by local law to | disavow in perpetuity and on behalf of all successors all reserved | rights, and _if that is locally unsuccessful_ grants a permissive | license under his/her powers as copyright owner. | | I realize there are a whole lot of software engineers out there who'd | like to handwave copyright law out of their lives (including you), but | it'd be really nice if they'd occasionally bother to consult suitable | legal help before shooting themselves and others in the foot. If you're interested in more, here is a followup message. http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/52.html -- 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/1326034309.31174.140661020729...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Debian official web site is still non-free
Hello! I see there's (at last) some activity on bug #388141 [1]. I am happy to see that, but I personally think it's going in a slightly wrong direction... :-( First of all, a brief summary of bug #238245 [2] and of bug #388141 [1] (which started as a clone of #238245 [2]), for debian-legal readers. Anyone who is interested in all the details is invited to (re-)read the complete (long) bug logs. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/388141 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/238245 The issue is two-fold: firstly, the official Debian web site is licensed [3] under the terms of the OPL [4] and therefore fails to comply with the DFSG. Secondly, the web site claims [3] to be copyrighted by SPI, while it's not [5]. [3] http://www.debian.org/license [4] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#40 [5] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#58 End of summary. Recent discussions on bug #388141 [1] (starting at message #206), include a plan to ask for copyright assignments to SPI from all future and (then) past contributors. I think this is the wrong approach. The Debian Project does *not* ask for copyright transfers for anything, AFAICT. Not even for the packaging. Why should a contributor trust SPI to always take the Right™ licensing decisions in the future for his/her contributions? Moreover, copyright assignment is much more difficult from a legal standpoint, may require dead-tree paperwork and may be problematic for some contributors. I acknowledge that the current plan includes the possibility of exceptions for those not willing to assign their copyright, but, then, why asking at all? A way of handling these cases must be devised anyway. That way is asking for re-licensing consent. Let's do so for everybody! I personally think the appropriate plan to address the issue is therefore doing the following actions (all of them, in the specified order!): (A) Decide a set of licenses for the Debian web site. A default for GNU GPL v2, with the Expat/MIT being allowed (for any contributor who wants to use a more permissive license) seems to be the most reasonable proposal [6] [6] http://bugs.debian.org/388141#199 (B) Track down all contributors to the web site, contact them and ask them to agree to the re-licensing of their past contributions (under the GNU GPL v2 or, if they so wish, under the Expat/MIT). Please note that MJ Ray [7] and Bradley M. Kuhn [8] have offered help with this: I hope they are still willing to get involved... [7] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#138 [8] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#197 (C) Change the copyright notice for the web pages, to read Copyright (c) 1997-present by Debian WWW authors and so that it says the license is GNU GPL v2, except where noted that the license is Expat The proposed wml tags may be used to keep track of copyright holders of the various web pages (D) Future contributions will be accepted only if licensed under terms compatible with one of the allowed licenses I hope this plan makes sense to you, and may help in finally solving this issue. Thanks a lot for your time and for taking care of this bug. -- 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 pgpltyzCSki78.pgp Description: PGP signature
need help with openscad's license
hello debian-legal, as a part of my intent to package openscad (#583476), i want to ask you for help with the package's licensing. as outlined in the itp, the package is gpl-2+ itself and depends heavily on libcgal, which is qpl and thus in non-free, which sends openscad to contrib. openscad has a cgal exception on its license, and some time ago i contacted its only gpl dependency's author, who re-licensed his library to gpl-2+ with cgal exception too. so far, so good. now there is a very particular file in the openscad library, src/OGL_helper.h. it is derived from an OGL_helper.h in cgal, which is qpl licensed. i don't think that could bring anyone in trouble (qpl is ok with being modified and linked against, and whoever brings gpl into the end result had to agree to use parts of cgal anyway), but it's hard to represent in the debian package. i've come up with various ways, of which i'm not sure which will work or which of the working is best: * upstream author both the openscad author and i have tried to contact the author of the original OGL_helper.h file. if he agreed to dual-license it qpl and gpl, we'd all be fine. the modified version could stay in openscad, and there would be much rejoycing. * technical solution if the modifications could be split out from OGL_helper.h by means of c++, we would still link against the qpl version statically, but we wouldn't have to ship qpl source code in openscad and could rely on it being provided by the non-free build dependency. if it was trivial, the openscad authors would already have done it, and my c++ fu is not strong enough for such a task. now for the less elegant solutions... * a patch the debian package could contain a patch against the cgal version. that would be more or less equivalent to the technical solution, but far less elegant; plus, i wouldn't dare to judge the license situation of the resulting intermediate file that gets created on the build server. * declaring openscad nonfree we ship the qpl file, we are non-free. problem solved. i am still working on the version of the package that is to be released as 2011.12-1, a preliminary version of the copyright file is attached. the other FIXME it contains (contrib/OpenSCAD.xml) will, as i hope, be resolved by the file's author (who is active on the project's mailing list). do you know any other way out, or have other suggestions on how to solve that? regards chrysn -- I shouldn't have written all those tank programs. -- Kevin Flynn Format: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?revision=174 Upstream-Name: opencsg Source: http://opencsg.org/ Files: * Copyright: © 2009-2011 Clifford Wolf cliff...@clifford.at, Marius Kintel mar...@kintel.net License: GPL-2+ with CGAL exception Files: src/OGL_helper.h Copyright: © 1997-2002 Max-Planck-Institute Saarbruecken (Germany) License: QPL FIXME: original author has been contacted for gpl dual-licensing (this contains patches for openscad) Files: src/cache.h Copyright: © 2009-2011 Clifford Wolf cliff...@clifford.at, Marius Kintel mar...@kintel.net, 2010 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies) License: QtCommercial or LGPL-2.1 with some exception or GPL-3 Files: scripts/googlecode_upload.py Copyright: 2006-2007 Google Inc. License: Apache Files: contrib/scad.el Copyright: 2010-2011 Len Trigg len...@gmail.com License: GPL-2+ Files: contrib/OpenSCAD.xml Copyright: 2011 tjhowse tjho...@gmail.com License: FIXME check this Files: tests/lodepng.* Copyright: 2005-2011 Lode Vandevenne License: This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. . Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: . 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. . 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. . 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. File: tests/OffscreenContextGLX.cc Copyright: 1999-2001 Brian Paul License: X11 File: tests/test_pretty_print.py Copyright: 2011 Don Bright hugh.m.bri...@gmail.com License: GPL-2+ Files: debian/* Copyright: © 2010-2011 Christian M. Amsüss chr...@fsfe.org License: GPL-2+ with CGAL exception License: GPL-2+ with CGAL exception This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:50:17 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Secondly, the web site claims [3] to be copyrighted by SPI, while it's not [5]. As a side point: the above claim of yours is no longer true, see #632175. The web site now claims Copyright © 1997-2011 SPI and others. Good point, but where does it claim so? The already cited license page [3] currently says: | Copyright © 1997-2011 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. | P.O. Box 501248 | Indianapolis, IN 46250-6248 | United States [3] http://www.debian.org/license I fail to see others in both the rendered HTML page and the HTML code. Hence, I am a bit puzzled... -- 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 pgplv0AFEz79Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Recent discussions on bug #388141 [1] (starting at message #206),
include a plan to ask for copyright assignments to SPI from all future
and (then) past contributors.
I think this is the wrong approach.
The Debian Project does *not* ask for copyright transfers for anything,
AFAICT. Not even for the packaging.
Why should a contributor trust SPI to always take the Right™ licensing
decisions in the future for his/her contributions?
Let me followup on the specific point of copyright assignment, which I
definitely glossed over in my first follow-up to David's plan.
digression
I'm generally concerned with copyright assignments and I'll never sign
one myself for a piece of software to a for profit organization.
In this specific case, and as an author of some of the context on
www.debian.org website, I'll be much less concerned. Partly because it
is not software and of scarce interest outside the Debian context. But
more importantly because the assignment will be done to a non-profit
organization (SPI), that have transparent rules and elected bodies, and
that have Free Software principles at the heart of the organization.
/digression
Nevertheless --- and as already exemplified by several follow-ups to
David's proposal --- we are surely going to encounter more resistence to
copyright assignment requests than what we would encounter to re-license
requests. Let's see if we can avoid that.
(A) Decide a set of licenses for the Debian web site.
A default for GNU GPL v2, with the Expat/MIT being allowed
(for any contributor who wants to use a more permissive license)
seems to be the most reasonable proposal [6]
(B) Track down all contributors to the web site, contact them and ask
them to agree to the re-licensing of their past contributions
(under the GNU GPL v2 or, if they so wish, under the Expat/MIT).
David has mentioned two points in favor of copyright assignment over
re-licensing: (1) what if we need to do it again? and (2) separation
of concerns (i.e. first we get the right to re-license, and only then we
pick a license). I find both arguments quite convincing.
A possible way out, that I'm hereby suggesting, is to ask for the right
to re-license (instead of copyright assignment), but to ask a blanket
permission to re-license under any DFSG-free license the -www team will
see fit, now and in the future.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader ... @zack on identi.ca ... o o o « the
first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: need help with openscad's license
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:22:38 +0100 chrysn wrote: hello debian-legal, Hello chrysn! as a part of my intent to package openscad (#583476), i want to ask you for help with the package's licensing. Thanks for trying hard to solve this issue in the best possible way. as outlined in the itp, the package is gpl-2+ itself and depends heavily on libcgal, which is qpl and thus in non-free, which sends openscad to contrib. Have you tried to persuade libcgal copyright holder(s) to re-license libcgal under the GNU GPL v2 or later, or under the GNU LGPL v2.1, or, at least, to dual-license it under the QPL and one GPLv2-compatible license? This much more radical approach could make openscad suitable for inclusion in Debian main! Now *that* would be something really worth fighting for! ;-) [...] License: GPL-2+ with CGAL exception This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. . As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the CGAL library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from CGAL. . 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. See the GNU General Public License for more details. . A copy of the GNU General Public License can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2. This CGAL-linking exception seems to be a bit incomplete. Shouldn't there be also the permission to drop the exception? Please see the phrasing recommended by the FSF for the GPL v2 + linking exception: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs -- 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 pgpeqeHzLK4CD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:15:03 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [...] A possible way out, that I'm hereby suggesting, is to ask for the right to re-license (instead of copyright assignment), but to ask a blanket permission to re-license under any DFSG-free license the -www team will see fit, now and in the future. I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet unknown terms. At least, I would *not* want to give blanket permissions to re-license. Not even to a non-profit organization. I have been disappointed by too many organizations, including non-profit ones (please don't get me started with listing specific examples, or I'll go on for days!). Moreover, any DFSG-free license is quite vague. Who decides which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not? It is well-known (at least among debian-legal regulars) that not everybody agrees with each other on the DFSG-freeness of a work. Countless examples could be made. Hence, having a promise to re-license under a DFSG-free license won't be enough to reassure people who have their own strong opinions on software freedom issues. -- 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 pgpFvkKbohoZq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright
assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet
unknown terms.
I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people
opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one of them.
I, for one thing, generally oppose copyright assignments, but as this
discussion has made clear I've a different position than yours. Others
will have yet more different views, for sure.
I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting
copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions
get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about
software freedom. That is why I won't sign a copyright assignment to a
for-profit entity.
Restricting the camp to DFSG-free licenses gives already quite some
guarantees about what the license terms could be. For instance, they
won't be terms that forbid the content to be distributed as part of the
Debian archive. In other words, they won't be terms that put the content
at stake with Debian philosophy.
I understand that not all DFSG-free licenses are equal in terms of how
they represent moral beliefs of people (e.g. I'm myself more of a
copyleft kind of guy than a *BSD kind of guy). But it is the largest
horizon of software freedom beliefs we should expect from people who
have contributed to the *Debian* website. Strategically, it seems to me
that either we stick to that set of licenses, or we have to pick a
single license upfront. As mentioned by David and in my previous mail,
that would defeat the separation of concern goal.
Moreover, any DFSG-free license is quite vague.
Who decides which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not?
The Debian project has an official position on which licenses are
DFSG-free and which are not. I believe you know that very well.
We will all appreciate if you could avoid hijacking this discussion to
push agendas that object the current stance of the Debian project on
which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not. Those discussions do not
belong to this (already crowded) bug log.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: need help with openscad's license
hello, On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:22:39PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Have you tried to persuade libcgal copyright holder(s) to re-license libcgal under the GNU GPL v2 or later, or under the GNU LGPL v2.1, or, at least, to dual-license it under the QPL and one GPLv2-compatible license? i've checked the licensing situation and there have alreay been approaches to convince them. the problem is, cgal is composed of different modules by many different people, some of which are already dfsg free, but others insist on sticking to qpl. asking them one at a time with a particular problem at hand (like i try here) is probably the best i can do. As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the CGAL library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from CGAL. This CGAL-linking exception seems to be a bit incomplete. Shouldn't there be also the permission to drop the exception? Please see the phrasing recommended by the FSF for the GPL v2 + linking exception: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs the wording follows exactly the wording recommended for a qpl exception by the fsf[1]. the note on dropping it seems to be a good idea in case some new library needs an exception, thanks for your input chrysn [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#QPL -- To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers. -- Bene Gesserit axiom signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
Le Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about software freedom. That is why I won't sign a copyright assignment to a for-profit entity. Hi Stefano, in my understanding, there is still a big difference between copyright assignment and re-licensing, even if we trust the license to be free. - In the case of assignment, the author has to comply with the license chosen by SPI. - In the case of re-licensing, the author can still use his work under the license he prefers. Imagine for example that I write for the Debian Med project's pages a short explanation of what ‘biological sequence alignment’ means. In that case, I would like to keep the option to re-use my work freely. However, if the website were copylefted, and if I would transfer my copyright, this would restrict my possibilities to re-use my own work. For that reason, I think that copyright assignment and choice of license can not be separated. Which is another good reason to go for relicensing or copyright disclaiming instead. 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/20120109013219.ga18...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one of them. I personally don't really see the need for copyright assignments, unless we foresee the need to enforce the copyright. Instead, a properly written maximally permissive grant (with the ability to sublicence) to SPI or some other appropriate body in addition to licensing the work under the currently understood set of licenses. Or, if we decide that we won't ever need to relicense, we can just continue on with proper licensing terms. Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry 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/20120108223738.gs26...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
GPG key issue
Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask for a advice. I have become DD in last days, in all my NM process, and in all my debian work I used only my first and last name, my doubt is related to my second name. I use it only on official/buroccratic documents. Now I've created a new 4096 GPG key, I've specified also my second name (I tought that is more correct), my doubt regards this. Maybe it's a problem asking for a replacement of my old key? It's better if I recreate a key without my second name? thanks very much for any advice. francesco -- .''`. Francesco Namuri france...@namuri.it : :' : http://namuri.it/ `. `' key ID = 3B30EB44 `-fingerprint = 20FC 1C89 F7B8 F724 08FD B4B1 8E27 6437 3B30 EB44 -- 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/0795e8ae72fd3b9c0d947333d367e569.squir...@hal.hierax.net
