Re: Are all files produced by GPL Ghostscript copyrighted by 'Artifex Software, Inc.'?
Issues regarding copyright, or legal issues in general should be sent to debian-legal@lists.debian.org CC'd On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:09:32PM -0800, Vaibhav Niku wrote: Hello all pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this: %!PS-Adobe-3.0 ... %%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite) ... %%BeginProlog % This copyright applies to everything between here and the %%EndProlog: % Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved. %%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0 ... %%EndProlog ... %%EOF (Needless to say, the files are corrupted if you delete the Prolog stuff.) This is a serious issue on multiple counts: (i) The idea itself is ghastly! It is like saying that if you convert a photo from one format to another in via ImageMagick tools, ImageMagick LLC will hold the copyright to your new photo. And it may be even worse. Depending on where all gs inserts the copyright notice, it may be equivalent to emacs claiming copyright for all your code! (ii) Why is the information about this missing _everywhere_? Nothing in man pages, nothing in /usr/share/doc/ghostscript/, nothing on gs homepages (http://www.ghostscript.com and http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ .) And finally, (iii) Why is gs a part of Debian? Since Debian maintainers find such restrictions acceptable for files produced by one program, how do I know that it is not acceptable for other programs? Am I supposed to check files with a hexeditor after every change I make to every file? P.S.: Someone on #debian at irc.debian.org said that the notice is not inserted when using the upcoming version 9.17 of gs. (available in wheezy; the latest version for stable is 8.71) Even so, I would like to have clear information about this file. There are probaly hundreds of thousands of files having this notice upto now. The authors of these would be interested in knowing that ARTIFEX SOFTWARE, INC claims copyright for them. (https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=%25%20This%20copyright%20applies%20to%20everything%20between%20here%20and%20the%20%25%25EndProlog%3A ) Yours faithfully, ~Vaibhav. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1356156572.82923.yahoomailclas...@web161706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- 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/20121222085116.GB3507@tal
Re: Are all files produced by GPL Ghostscript copyrighted by 'Artifex Software, Inc.'?
One solution to the problem is to get the source code, delete the lines which insert the copyright notice (“modify the code”), compile the code, and use this. This is legal as the code is released under GPL and GPL allows modifications. (You could release your modifications too. This is how Debian makes ‘Iceweasel’ out of ‘Firefox’ -- just so that Debian users don't have to sign a EULA with Mozilla.) Still, Ghostscript (in its present state) should not be a part of Debian. Indeed, if signing a EULA is unacceptable, how much worse is having your code copyrighted by a third party! ~Vaibhav [Initially sent to debian-user; resent to this list after reading Chris Bannister’s response to d-u.] pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this: %!PS-Adobe-3.0 ... %%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite) ... %%BeginProlog % This copyright applies to everything between here and the %%EndProlog: % Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved. %%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0 ... %%EndProlog ... %%EOF -- 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/1356179600.47066.yahoomailclas...@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Re: Are all files produced by GPL Ghostscript copyrighted by 'Artifex Software, Inc.'?
Done. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696539 Please fill a bug against ghostscript bts. -- 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/1356192035.73276.yahoomailclas...@web161701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Re: Open data french license
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:15:11 + (GMT) Jonathan Keller wrote: Hi everyone, Hi. I think that you are misinterpretating this issue. Maybe, but I am not convinced by your arguments... But this license is made in order to publish the public data as requisted by the french/european law/regulation (if you are interrested by this issue, I can send you later the references). The aim is the publication First the producer is a public entity not a private one. I think that a re-user becomes producer of Derivative information, whenever he/she modifies the information in order to create such Derivative information (as permitted by the third point of the _You are free to re-use the Information_ section). Especially, if this re-user is willing to license the Derivative information under the terms of the Open Licence itself... [...] In fact, this license/licence is granted in order to let people re-use the public data, not to modify it. I think that this is contradicted by the very license text, which states (in the third point of the _You are free to re-use the Information_ section): [...] | You are free to re-use the « Information » : [...] | • To adapt, modify, transform and extract from the « Information », | for instance to build upon it in order to create « Derivative | information » ; [...] To make it clear and simple, this data is supposed to be aggregated, associated, used in many ways but not modified. In this context, the public data is free. As I said above, I don't think your interpretation is grounded in the license text. But, anyway, if your interpretation is confirmed to be valid, then the license is even farther away from meeting the DFSG... French public data law has for principle to crystalize the public data and avoid this very data to be modified. The public data is supposed to reflect a certain truth at a certain time. If the data is modified therefore the certain truth at a certain time is altered. If you want it s a creative commons license BY ND. But the public data is free and can be used as it is. The license itself claims to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution v2.0 license, which actually allows licensees to modify the licensed work (even though with certain non-free restrictions...). So, once again, I cannot understand where your interpretation comes from... I hope that it s more clear for you. Not really, unfortunately. -- 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 pgpr8Haoi4rvK.pgp Description: PGP signature
