Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
[...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values. How heated. This is exactly like the kind request to send patches to the upstream author, or the kind request to make a donation or otherwise support the project. This kind of stuff is usually accepted. I don't see anything especially bad in a 5-users limitation. It's a bug like a million other limitations we have. For example, in kicad I can't make more than 12 inner layers in the PCB. We accept it because it's by design, but what if there were another kicad sold for profit without such limitation? Worse: open/libre office refuses to open on a different display (export DISPLAY) than the first instance that has been fired. And firefox forces me to create a different profile to achieve that. I find them limiting, and they are not easily patched. Than I'm aware I'm obsolete inside and few people swear at this, but it's similar. The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in their spare time after earning a living on proprietary software. And those who insist in remaining independent are starving, unless they are better at marketing than at developing. I welcome this approach, because it's novel and smart. Not defective by design, but a simple thing to raise user's attention to a problem. Clearly I wouldn't like being forced to rebuild this and that to make real use of the distro. But unless we know what this software package is, all of this discussion is moot. The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug, easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to exist, and it's unclear whether debian should fix it immediately or later, or not fix it. I'm disappointed about all this handwaving about freedom, when it's just a a bug, even if on purpose. I heard about a commercial model of making subtly bugged software and then sell consultancy to fix those bugs when users hit them. *that* would be bad to have in debian, but we can't really know if some of this exists or has been accepted. The upstream author of this discussion is much more clear and honest, and I respect it. BTW, dual-licensed stuff like Qt is much more predatory than this, and still is in main -- but I don't want to open this can of worms, it's just as a comparison about what commercial models debian supports (one-copyright holder, no unassigned contributions, separate proprietary distribution channel) and what we discuss strongly about (an upstream author who honestly claims he has completely-free software with an easily-patched limitation in order to bring some non-techie to support him). thanks for reading /alessandro, not a DD, not a lawyer, and commercially irrelevant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150401062034.ga...@mail.gnudd.com
Re: picviz license (generated images as derivative work ?)
Note that the GPL places important restrictions on derived works, yet it does not provide a detailed definition of that term. It's so on purpose: it's copyright law that says what is a derived work. Authors can't extend the reach of their rights at will. At least when they don't sell devices that implement effective technological means /alessandro, not a lawyer, not a DD -- 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/20120225151844.ga22...@mail.gnudd.com
Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian
[...] Calling the German lawyer to find out who are his client might be a good idea. I heard from other sources, which I consider trustworthy, that this was discovered to be a fake letter, sent as a sort of bad joke. Therefore, the specific case is of no real interest, although I agree that the problem of torrent distribution is worth addressing. /alessandro -- 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/20110426204103.ga18...@mail.gnudd.com
Re: Inappropriate use of Debian logo.
Can it really be reasonable, in any sense of the word, to believe that this company would independently invent an identical logo, pixel for pixel, changing only the hue. No, not reasonable. Unless both copied from the same swirl. Which seems reasonable. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00340.html and the associated image. I think we need someone with a copy of photoshop (hopefully the same version) to check where the swirl is and how much the debian one differs. /alessandro -- 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/20101201150626.ga10...@morgana.i.gnudd.com
Re: Inappropriate use of Debian logo.
FYI - A computer shop has taken the Debian logo and used it for his business. http://imgur.com/gFKfs.jpg Thank you for making this jpeg, it's very clear. [...] The comapny Logo was created by photoshop and Logo software, we desgined it from the stretch. if you have somethins to say, give us a call. Unfortunately, they may be right and in good faith. This message confirms the swirl is just one of the defaults: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00340.html [which, may I say, was quite a naive choice for such an important distro] /alessandro -- 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/20101128093644.ga2...@morgana.i.gnudd.com
Re: Doubts regarding the GPLv(2,3) compatibility of libpcap
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by Yen Yen Lim and North Dakota State University * 4. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products *derived from this software without specific prior written permission. I think the FSF juge that this license is not compatible. Personally I have difficulties to understand why does it not fall with the points b and c (par 7) of GPLv3 The so-called obnoxious advertising clause is 3, not 4. You are right clause 4 is perfectly fine. /alessandro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL and command-line libraries
Henning Makholm (with my emphasis): If library L provides to program P an well-defined generic service with a simple black-box interface, and it is provided in a way that is essentially independent that the client is P rather than an unrelated program Q, then I think it is very hard to argue that the source code for P is derived from L (and similarly for compiled versions of P that do not include a statically linked L). [...] But that does mean that your library provides a generic black-box service, which makes is *unlikely* that you cound succesfully argue in court that the source code for the application is derived from your work. Actually, I've never heard the FSF claim that the _source_code_ of a program using a (black-box) library is derived from the library. What it claims is that the executable is derived from both, and the authors of either part have their say in choosing distribution terms. OTOH, I agree that source code for a program that deeply depends on the internal structure of a specific library might be considered a derived work of that library. But I don't think this point really matters here. But yes, I agree there is a vast gray area between what is clearly derived and what is clearly not. /alessandro
Re: Bug#282667: microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is
2- Debian distributes an operating System, so we are allowed to distribute it. Maybe it's just that English is not my mother tongue, but I just can't help my reading the license statement as meaning: ``These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of installation in [...] computer systems [...] sold or distributed to or by you.'' Actually, I think it parses this way: These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of installation in (the BIOS or Operating System of (computer systems which include a (Genuine Intel microprocessor sold or distributed to or by you))). i.e., the sold to or by is the CPU, the computer system includes such CPU the bios or OS is that of such a computer system the microcode can only be installed in such bios/os. As expected, Intel wants to restrict such code to computers running their processors. If you ship AMD you can't distribute their microcode. Distributing a generic operating system doesn't match these conditions. /alessandro
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
For Duchamp, violating the Mona Lisa was an integral part of the artistic statement being made. Whatever Duchamp has done, I'm sure he did it more than 50 (70) years after Leonardo died. He drew mustaches on a photograph of the painting, I think, and exposed it. He could show his photograph around because copyright had expired on the painting, but moral rights do not expire, at least accoding to Italian law (just stepped on that point today). [FWIW, I'm positive we have no problem with moral rights and free software]
Re: Knoppix and GPL
Klaus Knopper: Is nobody gettng tired of this topic? I thought we already cleared things up. The written offer is present on each CD, which complies to the GPL. I have an email from Dave Turner from the FSF stating that Knoppix IS in compliance with the GPL. Is there anything more to discuss? Andrew Suffield: This paragraph is highly confused. Firstly, Knoppix can't be in compliance with the GPL. The GPL is a license. It applies to people. You cannot sue a piece of software. It is the people who distribute Knoppix who must comply with the GPL.^ ^^^ Definitely. I read the above paragraph as knoppix as distributed by me is in compliance, since Dave Turner wrote to Klaus Knopper. Not confused at all to me. Secondly, a written offer in a CD image is a really weird notion. [...] If legally binding, it's as valid. I can't tell if it's legally binding but I assume it is, as Dave Turner is not a novice at all. Lastly, this written offer does *NOT* exempt commercial distributers from being required to either: a) provide the source along with the binaries b) provide a written offer *OF THEIR OWN*, valid for at least three years, to provide source on demand Sure. But as you write above (and underlined by me), that is _their_ problem, not Klaus Knopper's. That said most magazines have this problem, at least in Italy. Still, not a problem for the developers or original packagers, as they comply with license terms -- it remains a problem for them as users, though. /alessandro
Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality
reconsider using the term intellectual property http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty The problem here is that no alternatives are suggested. We in Italy tendo to use intellectual patrimony (like heritage) or intellectual paternity (like parenthood), according to the context. Unfortunately, we refers to an exceedingly small number of people. /alessandro
Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality
According to how I read the FSF's page, the problem is not avoided by using another phrase to replace intellectual property. You are right. But I think I am too :) Any opinions you convey about copyright (for instance) probably are not true for patents, and vice versa. Definitely. I am (well, we are, the same we as in my other post) careful about the difference. But there are times where you need to convey the more general idea of abstract assets, and copyright or droit d'auteur doesn't convey that meaning [I never speak positively about patents, I don't bless them as intellectual as in my country the official name is _industrial_ patent]. But it's difficult to avoid a bad term without offering a better alternative, that's why we looked for one. So I say the copyright system is concerned about intellectual heritage, not property. /alessandro
