Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of a monopoly the “owner” in a property sense. IANAL, but it seems the attempt to frame copyright as property is not founded in its inception nor its effects. As much as a lot of us want to disagree with it, the law does explicitly state that copyright is property - see e.g. Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s196(1): Copyright is personal property... -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com writes: On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of a monopoly the “owner” in a property sense. IANAL, but it seems the attempt to frame copyright as property is not founded in its inception nor its effects. As much as a lot of us want to disagree with it, the law does explicitly state that copyright is property That is answering the question of what specific laws say in specific jurisdictions, which is not a question I raised. While it's true that the wording of copyright law in specific jurisdictions is where it actually matters, this sub-thread is about the correct *framing* of copyright. Which is why I'm arguing from the inception and effects of copyright, to point out that copyright wasn't conceived as property, nor is it sensible to see its effects in terms of property. So we should avoid the framing of copyright as *necessarily* a property right; that wasn't the case in the past, so we don't need to accept that it will remain so. Our framing should be in accordance with that. I understand what you're saying - admittedly I'm not really keeping up with this thread so I haven't really been thinking about the context, but whenever we say that copyright shouldn't be treated as property, the fact is the law says it's property. Although in response to the original question about the term 'proprietary software', this being debian-legal we all understand the FSF use of the term. -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License for libecap
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com wrote: Hi, I'm considering packaging libecap, a library used by Squid 3.1 to provide modular extensible capabilities. It uses the following license which to my unpracticed eye looks fairly similar to a BSD with advertising clause, but I thought I should check with you guys first... :-) == Copyright 2008 The Measurement Factory. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE MEASUREMENT FACTORY ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE MEASUREMENT FACTORY OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. == Yep, that's a 2-clause BSD license, which is fine. -- Andrew Donnellan andrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:05 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: This is just a drive-by comment from me that the public domain can mean either the (US?) idea of being shared and shareable without restriction or the (UK?) idea of being known by members of the public and not any sort of secret. That's true, but in the context of the area of the file where you would otherwise find a copyright notice, I would think that most reasonable people would interpret it as the 'US' idea. I'm not sure of testing in court, but if it's pretty obviously unrestricted, it's probably good enough - although not ideal as that sort of public domain is shrunk by bad laws recently. I don't think that a plaintiff suing for infringement over this work would have much luck in court, but if someone can find case law that suggests otherwise... In any case, the likelihood of the author or any subsequent copyright holder taking any sort of action over this is very, very small. Also, for this particular case, see the author's post in sci.crypt.research back in Jan 1995[0]: LEGAL STUFF The intention of this document is to share some research results on an informal basis. You may freely use the algorithm and code listed above as far as I'm concerned, as long as you don't sue me for anything, but there may be other restrictions that I am not aware of to your using it. The C++ code fragment above is just intended to illustrate the algorithm being discussed, and is not a complete application. I understand this document to be Constitutionally protected publication, and not a munition, but don't blame me if it explodes or has toxic side effects. So for this particular code it's fine, copyright or not, although the effect of the warranty disclaimer could be debated ;) [0] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt.research/browse_thread/thread/85d7519a3486193c/5817f0a5906c1bf7 -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: is the Clearthought Software License free?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:23 PM, jochen georges gnu...@gnugeo.de wrote: hello debian-legal team, i wrote a small java-app which i want to make a deian package from. the code, that i wrote is under gpl, but i used the TableLayout-library which has the following licence (see:https://tablelayout.dev.java.net/files/documents/3495/59349/License.txt) /* * * * The Clearthought Software License, Version 1.0 * * Copyright (c) 2001 Daniel Barbalace. All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * 2. The original software may not be altered. However, the classes * provided may be subclasses as long as the subclasses are not * packaged in the info.clearthought package or any subpackage of * info.clearthought. The original software may not be altered - it's non-free, unfortunately :( -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: is the Clearthought Software License free?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com wrote: /* * * * The Clearthought Software License, Version 1.0 * * Copyright (c) 2001 Daniel Barbalace. All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * 2. The original software may not be altered. However, the classes * provided may be subclasses as long as the subclasses are not * packaged in the info.clearthought package or any subpackage of * info.clearthought. The original software may not be altered - it's non-free, unfortunately :( Actually looking at it more closely, it looks to be self-contradictory - the license also says Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted... which seems to permit alterations. You should probably check with the author and ask him to write some license terms which make more sense. -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: is the Clearthought Software License free?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote: IMHO this point has an other meaning: if you alter the code, you need to change the name (class name), i.e. the modified file could be info.mymymy.clearthought. I think it is covered by Integrity of The Author's Source Code, but I'm not sure to interpret the point 2 in the right way. Given that the first paragraph does appear to permit modifications I would think this would be the way the author intended it, but he really should write it more clearly. -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@gmail.com wrote: In the source code of the package my team is managing there is this one file. I'm wondering whether it is DFSG-free and weather GPL v2 only code can link it with/(out) exception. Here is the full copyright statement /* sapphire.cpp -- the Saphire II stream cipher class. Dedicated to the Public Domain the author and inventor: (Michael Paul Johnson). This code comes with no warranty. Use it at your own risk. Ported from the Pascal implementation of the Sapphire Stream Cipher 9 December 1994. Added hash pre- and post-processing 27 December 1994. Modified initialization to make index variables key dependent, made the output function more resistant to cryptanalysis, and renamed to Sapphire II 2 January 1995 */ Well, it's public domain, so there's no restrictions on it and it should be fine. (Although there is some debate going on about whether it's in fact possible to disclaim copyright in some jurisdictions, but I highly doubt the author will try to enforce anything.) -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sapphire.cpp -- Gpl compatible? DFSG-free?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: This is no guarantee against the author later realising they still hold copyright, changing their mind on their generosity, and enforcing their copyright on those who have violated that copyright. More significantly, it is no guarantee against *some other party* later realising they have (by whatever means) obtained the original author's copyrights, and deciding to enforce them. In other words, this assumption fails the “Tentacles of Evil” test. Far better would be to convince the upstream that despite their attempts, they still do hold copyright, and for them to explicitly grant license under extremely-permissive terms like those of Expat URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt. Whilst they might technically still hold copyright, I wonder if a court would consider a statement like 'Dedicated to the public domain' to be an all-permissive licence grant, given the common English meaning of the phrase. Probably hasn't been tested in court. -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GFDL 1.1
Hi Dimitrij, On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM, dmitrij.led...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all Software in question: GnomeSword Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1] I want to clarify that it still qualifies for the staying in Main. I've googled a lot about Debian and GFDL 1.2 but I'm a bit confused if the Debian resolution applies to GFDL 1.1 as well. It also puzzles me that GFDL 1.1 is not present in /usr/share/common-licenses/ And the proposed copyright format doesn't have GFDL-1.1 tag either (only v1.2) I'm member of the Crosswire packaging team and we are working on the new upsream release and hoping to get it into Jaunty and upload to Debian after Lenny (due to dependencies). Please help me to understand if this software with this documentation is DFSG compliant. [1] This is legal notice of the help file. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. You can find a copy of the GFDL at this link or in the file COPYING-DOCS distributed with this manual. As you can see it says 'Version 1.1 or any later version', so it can be used under GFDL 1.2 as well. So that should be fine. Andrew -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.auhkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- the govt should be paying the tax - A friend of mine, 02/11/2008 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Non free license?
On 12/20/08, Pietro Battiston too...@email.it wrote: Hello debian-legal, I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0]. The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from (eventual) maintainer, neither from ftp-masters. In the end, I'm repackaging it from scratch, but also trying to guess what could be the reason of the rejection, and I noticed a not really standard license... but in fact, it's a normal 3-clauses BSD license, with the third clause slightly modified [1]. Could you confirm this license is OK with debian? Looks OK to me. Regards -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.auhkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- the govt should be paying the tax - A friend of mine, 02/11/2008 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
CPAL (was: Bug#442032: ITP: openproj -- A desktop replacement for Microsoft Project. It is capable of sharing files with Microsoft Project...)
distributed with the Covered Code are the exclusive property of their owners and may only be used with the permission of their owners, or under circumstances otherwise permitted by law or as expressly set out in this License. 15. ADDITIONAL TERM: NETWORK USE. The term External Deployment means the use, distribution, or communication of the Original Code or Modifications in any way such that the Original Code or Modifications may be used by anyone other than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Code or Modifications as a distribution under section 3.1 and make Source Code available under Section 3.2. EXHIBIT A. Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0. The contents of this file are subject to the Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (the License); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at _. The License is based on the Mozilla Public License Version 1.1 but Sections 14 and 15 have been added to cover use of software over a computer network and provide for limited attribution for the Original Developer. In addition, Exhibit A has been modified to be consistent with Exhibit B. Software distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License. The Original Code is__. The Original Developer is not the Initial Developer and is __. If left blank, the Original Developer is the Initial Developer. The Initial Developer of the Original Code is . All portions of the code written by ___ are Copyright (c) _. All Rights Reserved. Contributor __. Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of the _ license (the [___] License), in which case the provisions of [__] License are applicable instead of those above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only under the terms of the [] License and not to allow others to use your version of this file under the CPAL, indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice and other provisions required by the [___] License. If you do not delete the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file under either the CPAL or the [___] License. [NOTE: The text of this Exhibit A may differ slightly from the text of the notices in the Source Code files of the Original Code. You should use the text of this Exhibit A rather than the text found in the Original Code Source Code for Your Modifications.] EXHIBIT B. Attribution Information Attribution Copyright Notice: ___ Attribution Phrase (not exceeding 10 words): ___ Attribution URL: ___ Graphic Image as provided in the Covered Code, if any. Display of Attribution Information is [required/not required] in Larger Works which are defined in the CPAL as a work which combines Covered Code or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of the CPAL. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SIM-IM uses default ICQ sounds
On 9/11/07, Joseph Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do sounds count as trademarks? If so, this likely is one. There are audio trademarks, yes, although this may not be one. However, audio is definitely copyrightable, so even if it isn't a trademark it may very well be a copyright violation. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
On 9/6/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can logos be considered reasonable legal notices or author attributions? What do you think? A logo definitely isn't a legal notice, but it *could* be an author attribution (although to me it seems more a project attribution or even an advertisement.) If it is considered an author attribution, it's still only reasonable where the code is used as originally intended in a graphical environment. If the code were somehow adapted for non-graphical use there'd be issues. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about gpl-commercial dual licencing
On 4/29/07, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you created the bindings using ctypes or similar, where there's no actual linking taking place, I think it's all OK. The specific technical mechanism used to link to libfoo doesn't matter. For the purposes of the GPL, it matters whether pyfoo forms a derivative work of libfoo. Whether that holds true for pyfoo or not depends on the details of pyfoo and libfoo. In the absence of strong technical evidence to the contrary, or specific precedent, I suggest you assume that pyfoo does derive from libfoo (regardless of the interface pyfoo uses to invoke libfoo). it matters whether pyfoo forms a derivative work of libfoo That's exactly why it does matter how it links. According to the FSF linking does create a derivative work, although I wouldn't think dl() would be considered as a derivative. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about gpl-commercial dual licencing
On 4/21/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all. Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. GPL is for open-source consumers and commercial licence is for closed-source consumers. Now I create Python binding to that library - pyfoo. Now I would like to dual-licence it myself, under the same terms -- GPL and a commercial licence. Now to get the right of dual-licensing, do I have to obtain a commercial licence from the author of libfoo? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please elucidate. Thanks. If you created the bindings using ctypes or similar, where there's no actual linking taking place, I think it's all OK. Otherwise, I think you still need a license - you would be linking against the library to create the bindings, therefore creating a derivative work, and as you have received the library under the GPL the terms of the GPL must apply. Of course, it still depends on whether the commercial license gives permission to do stuff like that anyway. However, I think a nice email to the author can clear it all up anyway - your Python bindings would simply drive more sales of the commercial license anyway. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: backporting and dual-licensing
On 4/21/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is: What would be considered a big enough difference/modification that X would need Y's permission for backporting the changes? Anything that is big enough to legally create a derivative. 1. If Y fixes a bug (of whatever severity) with a patch? Depends on the patch. If it's only a typo then maybe not, if it's bigger then maybe. 2. If Y makes improvements to the library by optimizing some algorithms? Depends on the optimisations, but usually, yes. 3. If Y adds new functionality to the library? Almost definitely. 4. If Y just restructures the library in a more efficient manner. I'd say yes. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for help in checking GPL-compatibility
On 4/14/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I pointed out to them that the SEPL does not have the modifications to be redistributed as patches only restriction which is the basic problem with the QPL, but after that I did not get any reply from them at all. 2. You may copy and distribute the SE provided that the entire package is distributed, including this License. 3. You may make modifications to the SE files and distribute your modifications in **a form distinct from the SE**. The following restrictions apply to modifications: I think it still does. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BSD MIT licenses compatible?
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remarks === The BSD is not compatible with the MIT license because it has an additional condition (i.e. you cannot use copyright holder's names to promote the product) that the MIT license lacks. Um, neither the BSD nor the MIT licenses have a clause saying 'You may not add additional restrictions.' -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BSD MIT licenses compatible?
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wonderful! Thanks for the clarification. :-) So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become licensed under both licenses? That is, did the originally-MIT portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD license? Thanks for your consideration. The combination of the MIT and BSD licensed code (ie. the whole file) is under the most restrictive one, the BSD license. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BSD MIT licenses compatible?
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to extract the originally-MIT portions from the file and act upon them only according to the MIT license? Yes, because if you can extract the exact portions that are MIT licensed there's no way you could tell the difference from the original MIT licensed code anyway. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
On 3/28/07, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which you have to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician). Ouch. As was indicated earlier this seems standard for all performance rights organisations. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence and copyright for autogenerated files (gtk-vim-syntax)
On 3/28/07, Laurent Bigonville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip By reading this I'm tempted to think that these files belong to the public domain. Could the name of functions and parameters owned by someone? Who must I credit for these files and under which licence? What do you think? I'd say they are public domain. As the author states, a list of function definitions may not even be copyrightable anyway, and I doubt anyone except perhaps SCO would bring any legal action for something like that, if it were copyrightable. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On 3/11/07, Michael Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've read up and found the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses are specifically disallowed by Debian (well GFDL with non-invariant sections seems ok, but does that make sense for creative/audio content?). Looking further, I could not find any Debian-approved licenses for creative (non-software) works [2], [3]. Is the Debian approach to just use a software license like GPL or BSD for creative content? Anyway, what recommendation should I make that will satisfy the DFSG? Thank you for your constructive thoughts. I'd recommend just using the GPL or Expat licenses, they are tried and tested and don't contain anything too specific to software. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?
On 3/10/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is my point: if they want to forbid some possible modifications (just because those modifications would break some law) by retaining source code and/or by license restrictions, they have a non-free goal! The only reasonable justification I can think of is we would be considered responsible if you made those modifications, but that justification would mean that the law is ill-conceived and should be changed ASAP, as I stated. Yes, I think they probably do have a non-free goal in keeping the source code; however while there are legit uses for source I think they would assume a lot of people would do illegal modifications. Anyway this isn't sufficient justification - petition Intel like crazy and maybe they will release the source :) People can modify their Wifi equipment to go over the legal limits pretty easily anyway... -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?
On 3/9/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For a lot of wifi cards (dunno about Intel's) it's regulatory - they can't sell cards that can be easily modified to exceed FCC limits, so they limit it in a binary firmware. If they gave away the source, people could easily modify the card to exceed the legal output power, and thus they can't give away source. This sounds like another cheap excuse: I cannot believe that the law really says that *Intel* is responsible if *I* modify an Intel WiFi card so that it exceeds regulatory limits... If there indeed is a law like this in some jurisdiction, well, the law should be changed ASAP. Intel should be able to sell easily-reprogrammable WiFi cards: if *I* modify one card and exceed regulatory limits, I should be seen as the *sole* responsible. While I agree that this isn't an excuse for not freeing it, it's *NOT* whether Intel is responsible, it's that they don't want you doing it anyway. ie. A crowbar can be used to break in to a house. I can give you one and not be responsible if you break into a house, but maybe I don't want you to anyway, so I won't give you one. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comments on the latest public CC draft
On 2/26/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all! In a recent message[1] to the cc-licenses list, a new draft of CC-v3.0 licenses was announced. The message included one document as attachment: BY-SA v 3 (020907) (US).pdf [1] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-February/005013.html snip Are there any differences between this draft and CC3.0 Final? -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Squiz.net Open Source License - is it free?
On 2/19/07, Victor Troska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Putting the technicalities of the legal notice aside, has anyone actually tried to use the thing? I had extraordinary amounts of trouble just to get it installed when I was looking for a simple CMS for a website I've since built in Joomla. Having to edit code all over the show just to get it to run isn't against the rules of open source obviously, but it casts huge amounts of doubt on a product thats already getting off on bad footing. Methinks this is just an invitation to shop @ squiz.net. A free download, but if you want it to do anything you need to pony up the dollars. Has anyone had a response from Squiz to to this thread yet?] Firstly, no HTML on this list :) Secondly, in January 2007, partly as a result of the comments from Debian Legal and Linux Australia, and the efforts of Avi Miller at Squiz, Squiz.net released MySource Matrix under the GPL. http://squiz.net/news/mysource-matrix-adopts-gpl Thirdly, Matrix isn't a 'simple' CMS. It runs *massive* sites like http://australia.gov.au (which won Australia's e-Government award a while back) and if you just need a simple CMS then just use Joomla. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: creative commons
On 1/6/07, Luis Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello I want some feedback on the compatibility of creative commons 2.5 and Debian. I read that v 2.0 is not compatible ... how about 2.5? are there variants that are and some that are not ... or ... they are not at all? At the moment it's believed that none of the Creative Commons licenses of any version (except CC-BY-SA Scotland v2.5 iirc) are DFSG compatible. BY and BY-SA v3.0 will most likely be DFSG free thanks to the effort of some Debian people. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this legal? [RFP: djohn -- Distributed password cracker]
On 1/4/07, Masayuki Hatta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Password cracking in itself has always been legal AFAIK. Using password crackers to crack other peoples systems without permission (ie. illegally obtaining access) is definitely illegal. There are legitimate uses for tools like djohn, eg. for security testing, for data recovery, etc. A Japanese software developer was arrested recently because he developed a P2P file-sharing implementation called Winny. Winny can be used legally, but some (well, I should say many) people used Winny as a mean of copyright violation (file sharing of proprietary movies, music, and so on). And somehow the police arrested those violators as well as the developer. See: https://www.cpsr.org/act/global/japan/enews/Winny2006 So, at least in Japan, I think it can be dangerous to develop or distribute legal tools with some foreseen illegal use. I know it's almost insane(we Debian already distribute such software), and the trial is not yet concluded, but that's the situation nowadays. As usual, IANAL, btw. AFAIK, in many jurisdictions, in regards to copyright circumvention it is often determined on the basis of 'is there any commercially viable legal use?' rather than 'is there any legal use?'. Did anyone *actually* use the program for legal purposes? Of course, as you mention the trial is not done yet, and if he's let off that should set a good precedent. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
On 12/10/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, does a Published by anonymous statement crearly and legibly identify you as the publisher ? I really doubt... Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is possible. As for pseudonymous publication (which is something different, let's remember), I don't know whether a Published by BlackStar statement satifies the clause... maybe, or maybe not... more probably not... If 'BlackStar' can be traced easily to a person, then I suppose it does. e.g. if the work is distributed among a small group where one of them has that as a nickname or something. Or if the work actually lists some contact details - phone, post, email, etc. [...] If the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no=20 material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some=20 or all of these sections as invariant. Kills copyleft: anyone can add Invariant Sections to a GFDLed work No, it's still copyleft, because it's still distributable under the same licence. However, it can go non-free, because FDL is not necessarily free. Indeed, the copyleft means that the Invariant Section propaganda is always present. It's a copyleft, just not a sort that helps free software. Does copyleft mean that modified versions must stay under the same license? Or does it mean that no additional restrictions may be placed on modified versions? I think that the keystone of copyleft is the latter, not the former. Or otherwise the LGPL would *not* be a (weak) copyleft license, as it has a conversion-to-GPL clause. Um, the GPL is *more* restrictive than the LGPL. So modified versions can *remove* the permission to link with proprietary software. (I realise what you mean, but LGPL-GPL isn't the best example...) -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PEAR / PHP License status
On 12/9/06, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:05:52PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote: Hi, If you are the author of said application, you could release under the MIT or BSD-type license. Couldn't GPL+exception be used? Or is the incompatibility both ways? (ie the PHP license has a clause prohibiting additional restrictions that the GPL would put on) -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/8/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan wrote: I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this definitely disallows it. Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new font (and not much else beyond that). This is of course a bad thing, but it can be said of virtually any copyleft license that doesn't provide an explicit conversion exemption. (IIRC, you can't combine MPL and GPL programs, either, unless you get explicit permission to relicense one or the other of them -- this doesn't affect bundling such programs into a distribution, though). True. As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. This is a standard exemption for font software. It recognizes that including a font in a document (e.g. a PDF or Postscript) file does not cause the license to bind the document. Yes. This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read technically, it would force all documents written with it to be released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they usually apply a similar additional exemption. Yes, the FSF has their font exemption. For font users, I would argue that document is a well-known term. It means you can embed the font in documents that use it. However, let's say that I write a GPL program, including the font in it somehow. How, exactly? The copyleft on the font doesn't bind the program for any use I can imagine. Not because of the document exemption, but because of this: can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that the font names of derivative works are changed. Sorry, I'll change the example - a GPL font. Note that the use of font names implies that the derivative works are fonts (i.e. that embedding or bundling does not constitute 'derivation' under the license). That may be poor wording (because 'derivation' has a legal meaning in its own right), but ISTM that the intent is clearly that only another font can be considered a 'derivative work' of the font. Any other use is 'bundling' or 'embedding'. I can see where that could be confusing coming from first-principles, but understanding how fonts are used and what they are, it seems quite clear. It is very difficult to imagine a GPL program that incorporates a font in any way other than as a description of the appearance of text to be generated by the program. In that use, the font is an intact bundled piece of data, processed by the program (which also means the GPL's copyleft doesn't bind it, either), and not a part of the program. What the OFL would require, however, is that if the font is modified, the OFL must apply to the result, and the name of the font must be changed. I then proceed to copy it into OOo Writer. How, exactly? How do you copy a program into OOo Writer? You copy it by selecting the source code in your text editor, selecting the Copy option and switching to OOo and pressing pasting. Wait. Do you mean into an OOo Writer document (ODF) or into the source code for OOo Writer? ODF. Does this now give me an exemption? Does that exemption last after I take the source and compile it with FontForge or similar? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/6/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL --- SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006 --- PREAMBLE The goals of the Open Font License (OFL) are to stimulate worldwide development of collaborative font projects, to support the font creation efforts of academic and linguistic communities, and to provide a free and open framework in which fonts may be shared and improved in partnership with others. The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. The fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that the font names of derivative works are changed. The fonts and derivatives, however, cannot be released under any other type of license. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives. DEFINITIONS Font Software refers to the set of files released by the Copyright Holder(s) under this license and clearly marked as such. This may include source files, build scripts and documentation. Reserved Font Name refers to the Font Software name as seen by users and any other names as specified after the copyright statement. Original Version refers to the collection of Font Software components as distributed by the Copyright Holder(s). Modified Version refers to any derivative made by adding to, deleting, or substituting -- in part or in whole -- any of the components of the Original Version, by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to a new environment. Author refers to any designer, engineer, programmer, technical writer or other person who contributed to the Font Software. PERMISSION CONDITIONS Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy, merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and unmodified copies of the Font Software, subject to the following conditions: 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Again, that stupid 'can't be sold by itself' clause. 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user. 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the primary font name as presented to the users. I suppose this is a trademark-like restriction. 4) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) or the Author(s) of the Font Software shall not be used to promote, endorse or advertise any Modified Version, except to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) and the Author(s) or with their explicit written permission. 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. This could, while being IMO free, be problematic - what is the definition of document? Also could things like Debian packaging be counted as 'adding to'? -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/7/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this interfere with dual licensing? Not following this. You can't dual license unless you are the copyright holder, and then you always can (unless you are party to an exclusive rights contract). Sounds like this is simply a (somewhat weak) copyleft. I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this definitely disallows it. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. This is a standard exemption for font software. It recognizes that including a font in a document (e.g. a PDF or Postscript) file does not cause the license to bind the document. Yes. This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read technically, it would force all documents written with it to be released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they usually apply a similar additional exemption. Yes, the FSF has their font exemption. For font users, I would argue that document is a well-known term. It means you can embed the font in documents that use it. However, let's say that I write a GPL program, including the font in it somehow. I then proceed to copy it into OOo Writer. Does this therefore mean that I have an exemption from the copyleft? 'Document' is not defined. Technically it could be anything text-like, including source code. Legally it could be more difficult. -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What does most recent GPL mean?
On 12/5/06, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of those need to be qualified by *whose* GPL; that's why the recommendation for licensing a work under the GPL is [...] GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation [...]. It could be interpreted as the Affero GPL for example. Otherwise, it would be difficult post hoc to declaim the EvilCorp General Public License version 2 as a permitted license. Even worse, any license that has the initials 'GPL' could be used, like the EvilCorp General Private License or something really bad like that. Also this could be confusing if it turns out that there is another GPL out there. -- \ You know I could rent you out as a decoy for duck hunters? | `\ -- Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New licensing of Adobe Utopia fonts
IMHO that license is OK. On 11/18/06, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adobe has clarified licensing of Utopia fonts: https://lists.dante.de/pipermail/ctan-ann/2006-November/002366.html http://tug.org/fonts/utopia/LICENSE-utopia.txt Do you think its license is now free according to DFSG? Copied the license text here to facilitate discussion. = RE: License to TeX Users Group for the Utopia Typeface Adobe Systems Incorporated (Adobe) hereby grants to the TeX Users Group and its members a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to the typeface software for the Utopia Regular, Utopia Italic, Utopia Bold and Utopia bold Italic typefaces, including Adobe Type 1 font programs for each style (collectively, the Software) as set forth below. Adobe grants the TeX Users Group a license under its copyrights, to use, reproduce, display and distribute the Software for any purpose and without fee provided that the following copyright notice appears in all whole and partial copies of the Software and provided that the following trademark symbol and attribution appear in all unmodified copies of the Software: Copyright 1989, 1991 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved. (alternatively, @1989, 1991 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.) Utopia(R) Utopia is either a registered trademark or trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries. Used under license. Adobe also grants to the TeX Users Group a license to modify the Software for any purpose and redistribute such modifications, for any purpose and royalty-free, provided that the modified Software shall not use the font name(s) or trademark(s), in whole or in part, unless explicit written permission is granted by Adobe. This restriction applies to all references stored in the Software for identification purposes, such as the font menu name and other font description fields. The TeX Users Group is also permitted to sublicense, and grant such sublicensees the right to further sublicense, any or all the foregoing rights through multiple tiers of distribution. The licenses granted herein are granted in perpetuity and may not be terminated by either party unless such termination is based on a breach of the terms and conditions herein stated. Adobe retains ownership of the copyright in the Software. The TeX Users Group agrees that Adobe and its suppliers are the sole and exclusive owners of all rights, title and interest, including all copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade names, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights in the Software. No title or ownership of the Software, any copies of the Software, or the patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, trade name or other proprietary rights contained in the Software is transferred to the TeX Users Group. The Adobe trademarks shall not be used in advertising pertaining to the distribution of the Software without express prior permission from Adobe. Any such use shall be in accordance with the Adobe trademark guidelines, available on the Adobe website at http://www.adobe.com/misc/pdfs/TM GuideforThirdPartiesFinal.pdf. If any portion of the Software is changed, it cannot be marketed under Adobe's trademarks unless Adobe, in its sole discretion, approves by a prior writing the quality of the resulting implementation. The TeX Users Group shall have the right to evaluate the Software provided by Adobe. ADOBE MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY OF THE SOFTWARE FOR ANY PURPOSE. IT IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITHOUT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. ADOBE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL ADOBE BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PARTY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR ANY OTHER ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. ADOBE WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY TRAINING OR OTHER SUPPORT FOR THE SOFTWARE. Adobe Document Id: 4400078611 = -- \ I always wanted to be somebody. I see now that I should have | `\ been more specific. -- Lily Tomlin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http
Re: Releasing a software implementation of a board game as Free Software
On 10/14/06, Dr. ERDI Gergo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Please CC replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I have no idea where I could get questions like this answered, so I thought Debian-Legal would be a good place. I'm a European software developer and I'd like to release a GNOME software implementation of a commercial board game. The game in question is Gobblet (http://www.blueorangegames.com/gobblet.php). Can I release the game as Free Software (if I don't use the trademark Gobblet anywhere in its description)? If you don't use their trademarks and as long as there are no patents on it it should be OK. -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On 10/1/06, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose you could be equally conspicuous with boldface or differently colored text. The problem is, as far as the lawyers are concerned, all caps seems to work just fine. Why use something different? At best, the court will rule it's just as good as all caps. At worst, they'll say you deviated from common industry practice, which confuses consumers, and therefore your disclaimer was *not* conspicuous. However, ASCII does not have a code for bold, nor a code for colours. Without all caps it's a bit hard to emphasise plain ASCII text. If the license was always in a word processed doc it would be OK, but that's not always the case. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On 10/1/06, Sanghyeon Seo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, debian-legal! I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed. I am deadly serious. Link to the full text: http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased (in plain text) http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased.html (in HTML) In some jurisdictions it is required that any disclaimers must be appropriately emphasised, otherwise they are legally unenforceable. In text form the main form of emphasis is all uppercase letters. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On 10/1/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What jurisdictions are these? The only anecdotal explanation I've ever heard for capsturbation in warranty disclaimers, at least in the US, is that someone did it once and lawyers live in a monkey-see, monkey-do universe. I believe someone pointed out some statute or court case in Maryland or somewhere on d-l around the end of last year (I think it may have been Alexander Terekhov complaining about the lowercase disclaimer in GPLv3) that said that it was required. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License review request
On 10/1/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/1/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What jurisdictions are these? The only anecdotal explanation I've ever heard for capsturbation in warranty disclaimers, at least in the US, is that someone did it once and lawyers live in a monkey-see, monkey-do universe. I believe someone pointed out some statute or court case in Maryland or somewhere on d-l around the end of last year (I think it may have been Alexander Terekhov complaining about the lowercase disclaimer in GPLv3) that said that it was required. Just searched and apparently Alexander was complaining about the lowercase disclaimer but posted a link to some law about lawyers advertising or something. Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it would be wise to use emphasised text, at least put asterisks around it or something to draw attention. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about modification and distribution? To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.' -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/26/06, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works in pretty much all jurisdictions. Do you have any example of such a 'No Rights Reserved' license? I thought that the best one could do would be to use the MIT-license, since there isn't any (generally known) license which would give the recipient more rights. (And custom licenses are generally frowned upon.) I would just recommend something similar to the WP template, however the MIT/X license works just as well. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage. Where is that standardised? For English authors, I'd prefer the OP's statement to this one, but that may be different in countries where the government copyright agency doesn't use 'in the public domain' to mean it's available to the general public. It's not 'really' standardised, it is used however by some big projects, e.g. Wikipedia, to release stuff as PD. Also as I said it's something along the lines of that, not that exact wording. I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works in pretty much all jurisdictions. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review of a pseudo licence statement
On 9/9/06, Alexis Sukrieh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Please CC me, I'm not subscribed] Hi, I intent to package[1] the Perl module libnet-amazon-s3-perl (because it's needed by the package backup-manager). 1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=368734 The problem is that the copyright notice I can find in the upstream sources does not refer to a real licence. It sounds to me that it's free software, but I'd like to have your point of view before I upload the package. Here it is: # This software code is made available AS IS without warranties of any # kind. You may copy, display, modify and redistribute the software # code either by itself or as incorporated into your code; provided that # you do not remove any proprietary notices. Your use of this software # code is at your own risk and you waive any claim against Amazon # Digital Services, Inc. or its affiliates with respect to your use of # this software code. (c) 2006 Amazon Digital Services, Inc. or its # affiliates. It seems to be DFSG free, a very liberal license saying 'do whatever you want, just don't remove credit or sue us if it breaks.' Note that there is no COPYING file in the upstream tarball, nor any licencing paragraph in the README, the only copyright notice is the one above, included in the Perl source code. If that's all there is then I assume that would be the license. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Want to make sure...
That license is OK. On 9/6/06, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Currently I am packing the swhoisd (Simpel Whois Daemon) for Debian but I want to make sure, there are no problems... COPYING: 8 Copyright (c) 2000 Joao Cabral [EMAIL PROTECTED] All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2001 Dan Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] All rights reserved. $Id: COPYING 1.3 2001/07/02 19:05:15 dan Exp $ LICENSE Swhoisd is covered by the following copyright/license. This license is copied verbatium from the BSD-style license as modified by XFree86 to be GNU license compatible (i.e., it does not have the advertising clause--see http://www.xfree86.org/ and http://www.gnu.org/). It is also consistent with the Open Source definition (see http://www.opensource.org/): Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The name of the authors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 8 Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Want to make sure...
On 9/6/06, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. The name of the authors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. Is that a copying error or just a really stupid license? I would insert the word 'not' inbetween 'may' and 'be'. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of vesamodes-file in xorg-server source-package?
On 8/22/06, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The file hw/xfree86/common/vesamodes in xorg-server[1] source-package doesn't contain any kind of copyright or license statement, only this text: // // Default modes distilled from // VESA and Industry Standards and Guide for Computer Display Monitor // Timing, version 1.0, revision 0.8, adopted September 17, 1998. // // $XFree86: xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/etc/vesamodes,v 1.3 1999/11/16 03:28:03 tsi Exp $ Does anyone know what copyright and/or license, if any, applies to this file? The copyright-file of xorg-server includes a statement XFree86 code without an explicit copyright is covered by the following copyright/license: .. but I'm not sure if it applies to this file, as this file isn't XFree86 code but a list of modelines. I'm also a bit unsure about the fact that these modes have been taken from some publication, but there is no mention of why it was allowed to take them from that publication. I'm guessing these may very well be uncopyrightable as a list of facts. andrew [1]http://packages.debian.org/testing/source/xorg-server -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public domain?
Seems to be. In my previous reply I was actually assuming you had that info in writing, not just an email. But this seems to be OK. On 8/10/06, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi again, Upstream has agreed to add a license file to the tgz archive: This program is totally free and public domain. Do what you want to do with the source code. If you want, just give me some credits (Michel Louvet) if you port the game on another platform or use part of the source code. WARNING : The graphics and sound of the games are copyrighted material. There are in .BMP or .WAV format so you can change them if you want to distribute a totally free game. Of course, graphics and sounds will have to be replaced. I have artists working on that. Will that license be OK in these terms? Thanks! Miry (Please CC me, I'm not in the list) __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: public domain?
It's probably a 'no rights reserved', which is basically the same as public domain. On 8/7/06, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, How can I handle something like this? I just wanted to know under which license is it released, because I cannot find any doc on that. Pang 1.20 has no licence. It's totally free to use, and the source code are available to anyone who want to begin coding a game for example. May I understand that as the code being in the public domain? Greetings and thanks, Miry (Please, CC me, as I'm not in the list) Miry __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
of the legal rights granted by this License. This is a another DRM related clause. This should be ok, as it only dissallows distribution of the source or object code in a way that would prevent the users from excersizing their rights. This does not prevent distributing on some form of media with manditory DRM, as long as a form without DRM is distributed alongside it, as both would be covered under the same act of conveying, and the second version allows the users the rights they need. c) If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate copyright notice, and tells the user that there is no warranty for the program (or that you provide a warranty), that users may convey the modified work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License together with the central list (if any) of other terms in accord with section 7. Specifically, if the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a command to display this information must be prominent in the list; otherwise, the modified work must display this information at startup. However, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your modified work need not make them comply. I cannot belive they managed to make that clause even worse. I really wish they would drop it. 4) terms that require, if a modified version of the material they cover is a work intended to interact with users through a computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network session; or This might be considered a freeness problem it would only cover works that are using this option. Additional requirements are allowed only as stated in subsection 7b. If the Program as you received it purports to impose any other additional requirement, you may remove that requirement. Cool! You may not propagate or modify the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify the Program is void. If you violate this License, any copyright holder may put you on notice by notifying you of the violation, by any reasonable means, provided 60 days have not elapsed since the last violation. Having put you on notice, the copyright holder may then terminate your license at any time. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as they remain in full compliance. I still am not understanding the point of this sixty day statute of limitation. Overall it looks like there are fairly few problematic clauses in this draft. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
On 7/29/06, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the This is bad for services where use of a modified client is disallowed or detrimental to other users, e.g. let's say there is a GPL3 game that uses a centralised server to play against other players. Under this section any modified clients have the keys needed to connect to the server in a way that is indistinguishable, so I could modify it and add cheat codes and other controversial things and under this section they would not be able to distinguish me and ban me. But on the other hand, I need the key to run my modified version that runs on a computer with two moniters. See how this can go both ways? Yes. The only way to prevent cheating in online games is to move virtually all game logic to the server side. If anything important is running on the client side, the client CAN cheat. The alternative is to use something like the TPM. Even moving all logic to the server side can't stop it. Online games especially need to be able to distinguish the 'official' client from a modified one. Even if all logic is on the server side, the client still receives data that must not be disclosed to the player, e.g. map data. A modified client could easily defeat that. A clause like this needs to allow for 'legitimate' modifications, e.g. your two screens example, but also allow an online service to block users that are dishonestly using their modification powers. I really don't think that is a good idea. What isn't? The TPM idea? -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
On 7/29/06, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions while aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They really are the same problem. The issue is how the GPLv3 affects a service provider's right to put restrictions on usage of a service, not copyright licensing. However it is quite close to DRM and I can see why the FSF is putting this clause in. Whilst it may be detrimental for some, it does prevent the use of DRM, and of course there is always the option of using the GPLv2. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!
On 7/17/06, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI, if the modified special Debian Sarge is under GPL (and it is), I should either: 1. be able to download it for free; 2. be able to get it by post for a few euros. Not with a magazine! As a DVD. Period. The GPL does *not* say that you must be able to obtain any of it for free. That is part of the very *definition* of free software. The GPL only states that there has to be a written offer for at least 3yrs to send the *source code* by post for cost price, to anyone *who you distribute it to.* This means the magazine only has to send the source code to *people who buy it.* FYI, Debian *does* hold a trademark, but the Debian trademark license allows usage by unofficial versions if they say that they are unofficial. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!
On 7/17/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You were perfectly right until that last sentence. If I buy a copy of the magazine, with the DVD, and it contains a written offer to provide source code for the GPL material on the DVD (thus satisfying section 3 via 3b) I can redistribute that DVD non-commercially to other parties, giving them the written offer provided by the magazine (thus satisfying section 3 via 3c). The magazine is allowed to charge at-cost for the source distribution, so as not to leave themselves out of pocket. Correct, I forgot about 3c. Still, the point is that only purchasers or people who the purchasers have given it to non-commercially have the right to get the source at cost price. The GPL does not require anyone to give anything away for free, except the source at cost price. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Cuba, again
Just to clarify - if *you* exported Debian illegally, it won't get Debian in trouble, it would get you in trouble. andrew On 6/13/06, David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I've been invited to go to Cuba to support some of their free software iniciatives, which some of them are Debian-based. I've tried to understand what exactly are the limitations of the US embargo wrt Debian, or how can things could affect both sides. What should I not supposed to do there? I'm willing to push Cuban people (through the Latinamerican effort) to collaborate with Debian, is there anything they shouldn't be supposed to do? I would, for example, would be trying to do a small BSP with Cubans participating. Also, I'd like to have a KSP. Is there any limitations? If so, is there any workaround for it? Could be people participate by translating, let's say, the webwml tree? Can I take Debian CDs/DVDs with me a give them to people? Googling a bit, I've found a previous discussion on exporting Debian to Cuba, which apparently it is not allowed, what does this *exactly* mean? Thanks in advance for your support with this. Since I'm going there next week, I don't want to cause Debian legal problems wrt the US government, that's why I'd really want some answers in order to understand how to proceed with work plans there. -- David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.damog.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: C671257D Mueve tus pies: Actitud con los pies. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEjk9umBxf18ZxJX0RAgQBAKCgHVKhMH3bD8323Gmgb+okscr+vwCgo/BG FOUyM3vlzB6Ntp9ExJe+vfQ= =9uej -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ipv6calc: IP address assignments as source code
I wish mailing lists had moderation like Slashdot. -1 Flamebait. On 6/3/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The C header files containing the address assignments in the tarball are not source code in the GPL sense, ie. 'the preferred form of the work for making modifications'. This means that we're technically violating the GPL distributing the ipv6calc package in its current form. Get real, it's just data. Probably not even copyrightable. Unless somebody tells me I'm wrong somewhere, I'm about to file a You are wrong just about everywhere. Looks like you have been reading weirdos on debian-legal too long. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if I live in Italy? I don't think this is what the clause says. It is just a useless you shall respect the law clause. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. ***all applicable laws and regulations*** U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. andrew Choice of venue, which is non-free. I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. Why do you think so? Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. Those who don't are wrong. -- Henning MakholmThere is a danger that curious users may occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 04 June 2006 02:23, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is. Although a regular reader of debian-legal, I seldom post here. I believe Andrew may have seen me on -devel, -isp, -users, etc. Yes, I think I was reading off -devel. If Towns and Langasek have finished with the ad hominems, can we now return to consideration of the issues? Yes. As it seems here, the DDs, including one DPL, are trolling and making completely offtopic posts. Now I *really* wish mailing lists had moderation like /. does. -1 Troll to nearly every post AJ has made here. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
For the record, I think this is all offtopic trolling and we need to get back to the real work of checking licenses etc. And, AJ I don't think your replies are appropriate. andrew On 6/5/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant on this mailing list. Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing lists live? For the records, I believe that aj's reply was appropriate. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On 6/5/06, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. There are jurisdictions (either being exotic or not) which respect others jurisdictions laws by means of mutual agreements or any other form(s) and this could be easily enforced when texts in plain words occur like: U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ktorrent and GeoIP license
On 6/6/06, Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi debian-legal gurus, the new upstream release of ktorrent added GeoIP. I would like to know if the licensed used by GeoIP is ok, specially the database part : There are two licenses, one for the C library software, and one for the database. SOFTWARE LICENSE (C library) The GeoIP C Library is licensed under the GPL. For details see the COPYING file. OK. OPEN DATA LICENSE (GeoIP Standard Edition Database) Copyright (c) 2003 MaxMind LLC. All Rights Reserved. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning features or use of this database must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes GeoIP data created by MaxMind, available from http://maxmind.com/; Redistribution and use with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 2. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning features or use of this database must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes GeoIP data created by MaxMind, available from http://maxmind.com/; 3. MaxMind may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this database without specific prior written permission. THIS DATABASE IS PROVIDED BY MAXMIND.COM ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MAXMIND.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS DATABASE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Annoying, but DFSG-free AFAICT. This is the original BSD with advertising clause. Some parts of this software distribution are derived from the APNIC, ARIN and RIPE databases (copyright details below). The author of this module makes no claims of ownership on those parts. APNIC conditions of use: The files are freely available for download and use on the condition that APNIC will not be held responsible for any loss or damage arising from the application of the information contained in these reports. APNIC endeavours to the best of its ability to ensure the accuracy of these reports; however, APNIC makes no guarantee in this regard. In particular, it should be noted that these reports seek to indicate the country where resources were first allocated or assigned. It is not intended that these reports be considered as an authoritative statement of the location in which any specific resource may currently be in use. OK. ARIN database copyright: Copyright (c) American Registry for Internet Numbers. All rights reserved. RIPE database copyright: The information in the RIPE Database is available to the public for agreed Internet operation purposes, but is under copyright. The copyright statement is: Except for agreed Internet operational purposes, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the RIPE NCC on behalf of the copyright holders. Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities is explicitly forbidden and may be prosecuted. The RIPE NCC requests to be notified of any such activities or suspicions thereof. Definitely non-free. Except for agreed Internet operational purposes, no part of this publication may be reproduced is enough to make it non-free. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #include hallo.h * Olaf van der Spek [Sun, Jun 04 2006, 02:31:00PM]: For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew Donnellan's assertion that someone with one post ever on -legal is a regular participant, means Olaf is a senior analyst or something. Sorry, got the name confused and now suddenly realises the mistake :( I guess the conclusion is that being a Debian developer means you're right and not being one means you're wrong? No. The conclusion is that sane Debian developers do recognize the problem and prepare an effective solution for it in silence. In the meantime wanna-be developers are allowed to troll on debian-devel list. They should just not be able to appear as beeing competent or even be in charge, which has been prevented by the DPL. What is wrong with not being a DD? I'm not one, I'm not in NM, I don't maintain any packages, I just care about free software and Debian in particular. Debian is supposed to be *open* and *transparent*. Telling off users because their opinion doesn't matter is just stupid. What Mike said is completely relevant, and IMHO correct. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: please on-topic messages (Re: Sun Java available from non-free)
And which part of the message you quote as an example is the inappropriate one? AT For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer, AT doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer AT applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the AT debian-legal list. is COMPLETELY irrelevant IMHO. On 6/4/06, Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AT For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer, AT doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer AT applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the AT debian-legal list. So what? I would like to request everyone to think before posting any message on the debian mailing lists. Which mailing list is the most appropriate one? Must the message be posted on multiple mailing lists, or is one list enough? Does my message add enough value to be worth posting to so many people? Is the subject still the same or does my message start a new discussion? Does it work towards a real solution for the issue being discussed? Have I read all previous messages of the subject so that my message doesn't repeat what's already said? And so on. Thanks, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL violates DFSG point 3
On 6/1/06, Karl O. Pinc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL is not completely unmodifiable, you just have limitations on how you may modify it and still use it as a license. The FSF has given blanket permission to modify the GPL except for the preamble. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL violates DFSG point 3
On 6/1/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Note that this only applies to the GPL when it is serving as a licence under which a work in Debian is released. Random inclusion of the GPL otherwise is not allowed because it doesn't satisfy the DFSG.] The only exception is base-files, /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL is included even though base-files itself is under various licenses. However this would be an implicit exception. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL violates DFSG point 3
On 6/1/06, Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, the base-files package is under the GPL itself, so it's not a random inclusion. It applies to several copyrightable pieces like /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ or /usr/share/doc/base-files/README.base -- and even if it wasn't the case, you can take a random string of bits, license it under the GPL and plop into the package. You can do that as every single license there is GPL-compatible. In other words, no exception within the DFSG is needed. Never noticed that actually, I always assumed base-files was mostly PD. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL violates DFSG point 3
On 6/2/06, Jordan Abel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you omit the preamble and still use the license as the GPL (including redistributing works that were already licensed under the GPL, including referring to it as the GPL, etc)? If so, debian has no legitimate reason for making the preamble an exception to the DFSG as far as i can tell - it's non-free and should not be included in any package in main, and /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL should be the GPL without the preamble. AFAIK no. You either have to use the GPL unmodified or else it's not the GPL. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Against DRM 2.0
On 5/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people think that only machine opcodes are software, and that data in other formats are not. The argument, here, is that if it's not an opcode for the currently running machine, it's not a machine instruction, and if it's not a machine instruction, it's not a program, and if it's not a program it's not software. On the other hand, instruction could be thought of as instruction to display a certain arrangement of pixels, or instruction to play some sound, or whatever else. Unless you are focused on a specific task, instruction doesn't exclude much of anything (except, perhaps, garbage). Everything that consists of 0s and 1s, human-readable, machine-readable or otherwise, is software. Max, no matter what you say, that won't change because that is a fact. If a computer can use it in any way at all, Debian calls it software. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: visual boy advance
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around Ironic. On 5/25/06, Arthur Layton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On visual boy advance I downloaded the legend of zelda the minish cap and I started playing it. When I was close to beating the game the game just kept resetting all by it self when I got to a certain point in the level and I don't know how to fix it. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Against DRM 2.0
On 5/24/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] I said that many latin *juridical* terms are universal: the problem is that you don't know the language of the *right* No, the problem is that you seem to be using a foreign language to cloud matters which are really very simple. [...] You are closed in your little enchanted world. Not at all. I am in the real world, which uses English. End of discussion for me. I will speak only with a lawyer. I hope he charges you handsomely. Agreed. Max, FYI, this is a VOLUNTEER list. Want a lawyer? Look in the phone directory and get out the credit card. Lawyers don't care about freedom, you don't seem to, the rest of debian-legal does. I wish mailing lists had moderation like Slashdot. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Against DRM 2.0
On 5/21/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. I'm sorry but I don't use IE and I have not that checkbox at the bottom... Well dump Yahoo Mail. If you can't switch off HTML, it sucks. I am getting irritated enough by HTML mail that soon I will start blacklisting. 2. I repeat: it's unlogical to value through a software definition a thing that is not software. You can say: I want value this music on the basis of this software definition. OK. Also I can say: I want value this wine on the basis of this water definition. But the problem is that an image or a song is not software. For example, music concerns related rights (rights of executors and producers). Your software definition say nothing about this (because software doesn't concern these important rights). Yes it does. Software producers and executives have those rights as well. Art is not that different from software really - wine is different from water, it has a different chemical structure and wine reduced to water is no longer wine. Art can take many forms including software. So you can logically value free music through a free content definition. DFSG speak only about software, software and software. Max Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: 1. Ok: how? I use Yahoo! Mail. Found on http://expita.com/nomime.html: If using IE (not available in Netscape and other browsers) when in the Compose window, make sure Plain is selected rather than Color and Graphics. These two choices are a toggle switch. Clicking on one activates it and turns off the other. In any browser, also make sure the Allow HTML tags checkbox at the bottom is NOT checked. I gave up on Yahoo mail ages ago - I'm a Gmail user. 2. Yes, DSC is changed, but DFSG are the same! :-) DFSG speak only about software and you value every work on the basis of a software definition! It's unlogical. No it's not. Try running this: wget http://www.debian.org/social_contract cat social_contract | sed 's/software/work/' social_contract_work.html Then open up that file and read it again. It is perfectly logical. In this point of view, DSC v1 was logical and consistent; DSC v2 is unlogical and contradictory. There is no DSC v2, it's DSC v1.1. I suggest a Debian Free Artwork Guidelines. ;-) Why do we need them? 3. Question: is there a lawyer here?? AFAIK there are some who are occasional contributors. Most of us aren't lawyers, we're just interested in law. andrew Andrew Donnellan wrote: 1. PLEASE stop sending HTML. 2. GR-2004-003 changes the Debian Social Contract - it says that all 'works', not just software, must be free: We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a ***work*** is free in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We promise that the Debian system and ***all its components*** will be free ***according to these guidelines***. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: The license does not treat software: you cannot value the license on the basis of Debian Free Software Guidelines. ;-) However, where can I read that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free?? A link, please. Max Andrew Donnellan wrote: Fine remark, but... Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but... On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that Against DRM 2.0 does not treat software?? :-) ROFTL And why you don't speak about related rights? unnecessary license... :-) Max Evan Prodromou wrote: There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably Sony game consoles and some palmtop computers. The Against DRM license (which might win the contest for the license with the clumsiest name ever) would prevent me from porting any software to those platforms -- even if I made clear-text, modifiable and/or source versions available. How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: Against DRM 2.0
1. PLEASE stop sending HTML. 2. GR-2004-003 changes the Debian Social Contract - it says that all 'works', not just software, must be free: We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a ***work*** is free in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We promise that the Debian system and ***all its components*** will be free ***according to these guidelines***. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. On 5/20/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The license does not treat software: you cannot value the license on the basis of Debian Free Software Guidelines. ;-) However, where can I read that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free?? A link, please. Max Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fine remark, but... Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but... On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that Against DRM 2.0 does not treat software?? :-) ROFTL And why you don't speak about related rights? unnecessary license... :-) Max Evan Prodromou wrote: There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably Sony game consoles and some palmtop computers. The Against DRM license (which might win the contest for the license with the clumsiest name ever) would prevent me from porting any software to those platforms -- even if I made clear-text, modifiable and/or source versions available. How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Against DRM 2.0
On 5/20/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Ok: how? I use Yahoo! Mail. Found on http://expita.com/nomime.html: If using IE (not available in Netscape and other browsers) when in the Compose window, make sure Plain is selected rather than Color and Graphics. These two choices are a toggle switch. Clicking on one activates it and turns off the other. In any browser, also make sure the Allow HTML tags checkbox at the bottom is NOT checked. I gave up on Yahoo mail ages ago - I'm a Gmail user. 2. Yes, DSC is changed, but DFSG are the same! :-) DFSG speak only about software and you value every work on the basis of a software definition! It's unlogical. No it's not. Try running this: wget http://www.debian.org/social_contract cat social_contract | sed 's/software/work/' social_contract_work.html Then open up that file and read it again. It is perfectly logical. In this point of view, DSC v1 was logical and consistent; DSC v2 is unlogical and contradictory. There is no DSC v2, it's DSC v1.1. I suggest a Debian Free Artwork Guidelines. ;-) Why do we need them? 3. Question: is there a lawyer here?? AFAIK there are some who are occasional contributors. Most of us aren't lawyers, we're just interested in law. andrew Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. PLEASE stop sending HTML. 2. GR-2004-003 changes the Debian Social Contract - it says that all 'works', not just software, must be free: We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a ***work*** is free in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We promise that the Debian system and ***all its components*** will be free ***according to these guidelines***. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: The license does not treat software: you cannot value the license on the basis of Debian Free Software Guidelines. ;-) However, where can I read that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free?? A link, please. Max Andrew Donnellan wrote: Fine remark, but... Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but... On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that Against DRM 2.0 does not treat software?? :-) ROFTL And why you don't speak about related rights? unnecessary license... :-) Max Evan Prodromou wrote: There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably Sony game consoles and some palmtop computers. The Against DRM license (which might win the contest for the license with the clumsiest name ever) would prevent me from porting any software to those platforms -- even if I made clear-text, modifiable and/or source versions available. How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Against DRM 2.0
Fine remark, but... Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but... On 5/20/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that Against DRM 2.0 does not treat software?? :-) ROFTL And why you don't speak about related rights? unnecessary license... :-) Max Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably Sony game consoles and some palmtop computers. The Against DRM license (which might win the contest for the license with the clumsiest name ever) would prevent me from porting any software to those platforms -- even if I made clear-text, modifiable and/or source versions available. How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
On 5/11/06, Martin Kittel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, just a quick update of the situation: Upstream is still using Word documents as the basis for the HTML docs. I have asked about the possibility of a license exemption but am not expecting an answer anytime soon. Which still makes it non-free by Debian standards. Makes it at least legal though. This still leaves the discussion open as to whether the HTML would qualify as the preferred basis for modifications, especially in light of the fact the upstream has published the HTML only. What should be done is persuade upstream to release the Word docs! andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Free Art License [was: Re: [Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]]
Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards. FSF lists it as a free documentation license soon after the GFDL. Other than section 8, it seems a simple, GPL-incompatible (due to section 3), copyleft license. andrew On 4/28/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that is DFSG-free. Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License [ Copyleft Attitude ] version 1.2 Preamble : With this Free Art License, you are authorised to copy, distribute and freely transform the work of art while respecting the rights of the originator. Far from ignoring the author's rights, this license recognises them and protects them. It reformulates their principle while making it possible for the public to make creative use of the works of art. Whereas current literary and artistic property rights result in restriction of the public's access to works of art, the goal of the Free Art License is to encourage such access. The intention is to make work accessible and to authorise the use of its resources by the greatest number of people: to use it in order to increase its use, to create new conditions for creation in order to multiply the possibilities of creation, while respecting the originators in according them recognition and defending their moral rights. In fact, with the arrival of the digital age, the invention of the Internet and free software, a new approach to creation and production has made its appearance. It also encourages a continuation of the process of experimentation undertaken by many contemporary artists. Knowledge and creativity are resources which, to be true to themselves, must remain free, i.e. remain a fundamental search which is not directly related to a concrete application. Creating means discovering the unknown, means inventing a reality without any heed to realism. Thus, the object(ive) of art is not equivalent to the finished and defined art object. This is the basic aim of this Free Art License: to promote and protect artistic practice freed from the rules of the market economy. --- DEFINITIONS - The work of art : A communal work which includes the initial artwork as well as all subsequent contributions (subsequent originals and copies). It is created at the initiative of the original artist who, by this license, defines the conditions according to which the contributions are made. - The original work of art : This is the artwork created by the initiator of the communal work, of which copies will be modified by whosoever wishes. - Subsequent works : These are the additions put forward by the artists who contribute to the formation of the work by taking advantage of the right to reproduction, distribution and modification that this license confers on them. - The Original (the work's source or resource) : A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. - Copy : Any reproduction of an original as defined by this license. - The author or the artist of the original work of art: This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the ramifications of this modified work of art. By this license, the author determines the conditions under which these modifications are made. - Contributor: Any person who contributes to the creation of the work of art. He is the author or the artist of an original art object resulting from the modification of a copy of the initial artwork or the modification of a copy of a subsequent work of art. --- 1. AIMS The aim of this license is to define the conditions according to which you can use this work freely. 2. EXTENT OF THE USAGE This work of art is subject to copyright, and the author, by this license, specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute and modify it. 2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR OF REPRODUCTION) You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION) You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found, - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions
Re: A GPL-compatible license for photos and music. Which?
Yes, combine not distribute. Sorry. andrew On 4/24/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course GPL programs can *open* CC graphics, it's just you cannot *distribute* CC graphics with them if you want to be GPL-compatible. ITYM combine not distribute, as you correctly write below: The GPL gives you unlimited permission to run the program using whatever data you want, whether free or proprietary, but not to combine the GPL program with a GPL-incompatible work. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: A GPL-compatible license for photos and music. Which?
Of course GPL programs can *open* CC graphics, it's just you cannot *distribute* CC graphics with them if you want to be GPL-compatible. The GPL gives you unlimited permission to run the program using whatever data you want, whether free or proprietary, but not to combine the GPL program with a GPL-incompatible work. Hope this answers your question, andrew On 4/24/06, Ying-Chun Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, NeuRoTiX wrote: I took a look to the Creative Commons but it seems to be a non GPL-compatible license. Yes, most of the CC licenses (there are a few dozen of the things) are not GPL compatible. I got a question. Why CC music/graphics cannot be used in GPL programs? GPL allows system(xxx) (or fork+exec) to run non-GPL programs because it's a separated work. Why fopen(xxx.png) is not a separated work? -- PaulLiu(Ying-Chun Liu) E-mail address:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: software released into public domain
Yes, PD is automatically DFSG-free. andrew On 4/20/06, Roland Marcus Rutschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, my package integrates in it's newest version some code from a new library. I also would like to integrate that new library into debian. It is clearly intended to be free but I wanted to know if this is enough for DFSG? The software is here: http://niftilib.sourceforge.net/ It states on this page: ...Niftilib code is released into the public domain, developers are encouraged to incorporate niftilib code into their applications, and, to contribute changes and enhancements to niftilib. ... I didn't find any mentioning of the license within the downloaded files. While I think the intention DFSG is compatible I am not sure if this is specific enough but I wanted a second opinion before raising the question to the development board of the software. Thanks, Roland -- -- Roland Marcus Rutschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On 4/21/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about saying either first or last lines? What if both first and last lines are reserved for other uses? What about first or last usable lines in the source language? andrew The license does not seem to be GPLv2-compatible, as clause 3 is a weak copyleft constraint: it seems that I cannot combine a page under this I've removed that one. If you are going to propose a BSD-style license, I would strongly recommend the (unmodified) 2-clause BSD license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html The attached license is quite similar to the BSD license with the only differences being that there is no 'binary' form, there's just a compiled form of the site (and explicitly lists some formats which the source might be compiled too). This explicit listing of formats is one of the main problems with the license you're proposing: it ties things up to specific technical details that are really going to become obsolete soon. Good licenses try hard to avoid that. [...] In the website is not (c) SPI then our current footer really doesn't make any sense. Indeed. e) from here on access to the CVS of the website should be given after clearly stating (and getting and agreement) that any and all contributions to the CVS, unless specified otherwise with clear (c) statements in the code, will be (c) SPI and will be considered work under contract I don't think you can claim it's work under contract, unless there actually *is* a contract involved! Voluntary contributions are not work under contract, AFAICT. The idea of that portion, which might be misunderstood as the wording is not really accurate, is that if volunteers argue they worked for SPI for the website development there is no need to have paperwork done for the (c) transfer. If we drop the (c) transfer portion (I'm open to that, if people don't want it to be there) then this should be dropped too. AFAIK (in Spanish legislation at least) volunteer work can be considered work for contract (note the quotes) in the sense that you work for a company (a volunteer organisation) for free and you waive the rights to your work to it (including IP rights, and copyrights). Since there is no real written contract this does not conflict with the fact that the company you work for (the one you have a contract with) might have stated that you cannot work for others while working for them. I don't know if this argument could actually work in Spain. I really doubt it can work in *any* jurisdiction where at least one contributor lives... As I said, however, those steps could be dropped, but then we have to ask every contributor to have their contributions licensed under this license (and cross our fingers that we will not have to change it in the future). We should also probably have to change the (c) portion to list people that have contributed in the site or, at the very least, say that SPI is not the (c) holder. Listing contributors would be nice. It must be done at least in comments, as long as contributors retain their copyright, so why not doing it in a visible way? N.B.: no need to Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On 4/21/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:52:47 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 4/21/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about saying either first or last lines? What if both first and last lines are reserved for other uses? What about first or last usable lines in the source language? It would be an improvement, but would get so vague that dropping it entirely would make much more sense... At least that's my opinion: first or last usable lines in the source language is almost equivalent to wherever you like within the file, because the term usable is not that clearly defined... OK then, either the first or last lines of the file that can be used for non-displayable metadata in the source language. I actually don't want this clause, it's just that in its current version it's DFSG-nonfree, IMHO. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: What does disclaiming a copyright mean?
Disclaiming a copyright means releasing into the public domain. (as in no copyright at all). IANAL, but looking at what the license file says, I would assume it to be copyrighted by Said Abdeddaim and released under the LGPL, but the parts written by Burkhard Morgenstern are PD. andrew On 4/19/06, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear debian-legal subscribers, As I am not a native speaker, I face difficulty of understanding the following sentence: Burkhard Morgenstern hereby disclaims all copyright interest in DIALIGN, written by Burkhard Morgenstern and Said Abdeddaim. It is from the licence of the dialign program, which you can read here: http://charles-miroir.plessy.org/debian/dialign-2.1.1/license/LICENSE.TXT Does in mean that B. Morgenstern abandons his rights to S. Abdeddaim ? Thank you a lot for your help, -- Charles Plessy Wako, Saitama, Japon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: What does disclaiming a copyright mean?
On 4/19/06, Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan writes: Disclaiming a copyright means releasing into the public domain. (as in no copyright at all). IANAL, but looking at what the license file says, I would assume it to be copyrighted by Said Abdeddaim and released under the LGPL, but the parts written by Burkhard Morgenstern are PD. I disagree. This paragraph is boilerplate from the GPL (in the section on applying the GPL's terms and conditions to your own work). I believe the goal is to have a third party (like an employer) state that it does not have a copyright interest in a work, so that other people can rely more easily on the licensor's statement that the licensor licenses the work under the GPL. I'll disagree further - Burkhard Morgenstern is a professor at the University of Gottingen, and he is listed specifically as one of the authors. If it was an employer disclaiming copyright interest, wouldn't it be done by an authorised representative of a company/organisation? andrew The goal of the copyright disclaimer would then be to reduce uncertainty about whether the employer might later claim copyright (perhaps because the program could be considered a work made for hire or perhaps because the employer's contract with the employee normally gives the employer rights in programs written by the employee) and then try to apply terms inconsistent with the GPL terms to it. The person who issues a copyright disclaimer is not saying that there is no copyright -- just that he or she doesn't claim any copyright. I don't know if there are court cases that interpret the effect of this disclaimer in various jurisdictions. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | This is a new focus for the security http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | community. The actual user of the PC http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | [...] is the enemy. | -- David Aucsmith, IDF 1999 -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: clarification of doc licensing for db3/db4.2
Ask the new DPL (aj) I guess. andrew On 4/10/06, Mike Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dann wrote: Thank you for your offer. I think a relicensing would be the cleanest approach. Note that I am a Debian Developer, but I do not speak for the db packaging, release, or legal teams. I hope that they'll jump in if they are in disagreement with any of the statements I've made here. This is going to be some work for me. Oracle's legal department has been very helpful on our open source requests so far, but it's a large team and is not familiar with this issue yet. I'll need to find, then brief, then extract approval from, the right people here. Before I do that, can I get some kind of authoritative statement from Debian that the effort is necessary, and that it will satisfy the concerns that have raised this issue for the second time? I want to be helpful, but I want to be sure we are solving the problem here. To that end, direction from db, release or legal -- whoever can speak for Debian -- would be good. mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
I suppose porting glibc is quite important because it also minimises the porting of everything else that may need to be adapted. andrew On 4/7/06, Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-06 23:19]: Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc. Which I think would be most beneficial as it additianaly would minimize the number of packages to add to the archive for the solaris port in case nexentas work should become a debian subproject one day (and iirc that was one of the goals). yours Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System * Joey notices Alfie can read manpages :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
(d-l may give advice) So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible as Sun wouldn't like it). Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be considered free? andrew On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section has been well-understood and widely discussed for years. | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for | making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source | code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any | associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control | compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special | exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is | normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major | components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on | which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the | executable. The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying to do. This is not in any way an unintended consequence. It is an intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under the GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication. You're only allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing the software along with the OS. That clause is there to allow people to run free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code. We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward and were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which their code was released. If this is not what people want, they shouldn't use the GPL. Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of using the GPL. it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous. If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up? It's obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and make any sense. The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on anything else accompanying the binaries. It is not even a restriction; rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges that this use does not qualify for. It is a special exception, akin to the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the core requirements of the GPL: | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: | | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, | | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium | customarily used for software interchange; or, | | c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer | to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is | allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you | received the program in object code or executable form with such | an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc. andrew On 4/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (d-l may give advice) So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible as Sun wouldn't like it). Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be considered free? andrew On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section has been well-understood and widely discussed for years. | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for | making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source | code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any | associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control | compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special | exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is | normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major | components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on | which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the | executable. The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying to do. This is not in any way an unintended consequence. It is an intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under the GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication. You're only allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing the software along with the OS. That clause is there to allow people to run free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code. We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward and were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which their code was released. If this is not what people want, they shouldn't use the GPL. Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of using the GPL. it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous. If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up? It's obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and make any sense. The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on anything else accompanying the binaries. It is not even a restriction; rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges that this use does not qualify for. It is a special exception, akin to the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the core requirements of the GPL: | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: | | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, | | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium | customarily used for software interchange; or, | | c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer | to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is | allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you | received the program in object code or executable form with such | an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan
Re: GPL v3 possible issues.
I would much much rather use a Free software (ie GPL) DRM program than a proprietary one, because as we know, content providers *are not* going to give us open content or content without DRM. Open content is not, in my view, an issue like Free Software is, while DRM is a restriction that the GPL needs to allow (as a compromise). andrew On 3/19/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 09:15:40PM +, John Watson wrote: On controlling music, I personally see no issues with this. With out DRM, music or other media type content could not be legally made available over the Internet. This is false. Without DRM, certain greedy and immoral content providers will be *unwilling* to provide music over the Internet; but I am aware of no copyright laws in any jurisdiction that *mandate* the use of DRM. Well, since the content providers appear bent on using DRM, I'd rather have them use an open source DRM than some Sony-style rootkit. The majority of the content will always be non-free anyhow (and I don't have a problem with that), so an unobtrusive, portable DRM scheme isn't inherently bad in my view. DRM becomes nasty when it is closed and difficult (or even illegal) to use on your operating system of choice. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: cdrtools - GPL code with CDDL build system
It also contains a file whose location can't be legally changed. In my opinion it has always been non-free since the clauses were added. It's not really GPL. andrew On 3/19/06, Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Måns Rullgård wrote: Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using device names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead. Oh? How is it in main then? -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: cdrtools - GPL code with CDDL build system
.\n); /* 1.297 */ errmsgno(EX_BAD, /* 1.297 */ If you like to have a working version of cdrtools, get the\n); /* 1.297 */ errmsgno(EX_BAD, /* 1.297 */ original source from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/\n;); } #endif } ---END QUOTE--- For completeness, here's GPL 2c: ---BEGIN QUOTE--- c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) ---END QUOTE--- Take note that cdrecord is never interactive, so GPL 2c doesn't apply. I don't know why JS refers to it, but then JS does a lot of things that nobody understands. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Interpretation of the GFDL in light of the recent GR
On 3/17/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Branden, I am wondering if you will request that SPI, Inc. obtain from its legal council, on behalf of the Debian Project, an answer to the following questions: 1. Does the term technical measures as used in GFDL 2's you may Don't you mean 1.2? andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Option 2 says GFDL works without invariant sections are free. Does this include GFDL manuals where the *only* invariant section is the GFDL itself? (If I was a DD I would vote for Option 2 myself, and I think that it is acceptable to have a requirement that the license itself be included and not modified.) Andrew On 3/12/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian Project Secretary wrote: The winners are: Option 2 GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free Well, first off, I'm happy to see Option 3 failed to even meet majority; chaos is preserved for another day.[0] However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our future --- and possibly re-render our past --- interpretations of the DFSG in accordance. It is unfortunate that no thorough, point-by-point rebuttal of the position statement was given on -vote or -legal (to the best of my knowledge; I'd love to be wrong). I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either that does not make things non-free or that is not the intended reading of the license, stop nit-picking so much. So, without further ado, my attempt at this: _1. The DRM Restriction._ You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute has been mis-read. I don't think there is any way the Project would consider you must make all your files a+r, etc. a free license. I propose that the Project is telling us that something along the following is the true reading: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the copies you make or distribute [to him] This re-wording seems to clear up the three problems identified in [2]. _2. Transparent and Opaque copies_ This must be another mis-reading. Just as when you put a CD-ROM inside the box with a book you are includ[ing] a machine-readable Transparent copy, so are you when you put the transparent copy alongside the opaque copy on an FTP server. (This even seems somewhat acceptable as an interpretation, considering the FSF's stated views in the GPL FAQ) 3. Invariant Sections Here, the Project agrees with us. And then, [2] covers the more-detailed problems with the GFDL. I think that makes a subject for another message... _FOOTNOTES_ 0. Foundation documents are best not amended via hand waving but rather via clear changes; I have no idea how we'd continue to vet licenses had the hand-waving passed. 1. Not technically, but practically: -legal can't be overridden by GR since it can't actually make decisions. 2. http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
What would be good would be a license field for DEB packages, as well as being able to include packages from other repositories based on the content of a field. e.g. Name: autoconf-doc ... License: gfdl and /etc/apt/preferences: License: gfdl Pin: release c=non-free Pin-Priority: 500 I suppose debtags could do the former quite soon. andrew On 2/22/06, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Huerlimann wrote: Hi Frank On Monday, 20. February 2006 18:08, Frank Küster wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you explain that you would like to continue to use GFDL'ed (or OPL'ed, for that matter) documentation, but refuse to add non-free to you sources list? Because I don't like packages that are considered non-free by Debian. I generaly support it's decissions on freeness and it's social contract. But I don't regard GFDL and OPL as non-free. (No need to react to this statement, as it's just a personal interpretation. I fully recognize the decission taken by the Debian developers.) As a technical solution to your problem, you could use /etc/apt/preferences to ensure that you don't get any non-free packages except those you specifically consider free enough, such as autoconf-doc. The following (untested) snippet should work: Package: * Pin: release c=non-free Pin-Priority: -1 Package: autoconf-doc Pin: release c=non-free Pin-Priority: 500 - Josh Triplett -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions
On 2/15/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/14/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: I bet another EURO 50 (through PayPal) that Red Hat and Novell are also going to lose and won't get dismissal under 12(b)(6). I wish I could play, but I'm pretty sure wagering like that is illegal in the jurisdiction I live :-( Oh c'mon, even in Australia where ... http://www.dcita.gov.au/broad/online_content_and_gambling_regulation/online_gambling/frequently_asked_questions ... The Government remains concerned about the impact of online wagering, but recognises that this concern needs to be balanced against the impact of a ban on long established industries in Australia, such as the thoroughbred racing industry. A balance has been achieved by prohibiting 'ball by ball' betting-or wagering on any aspect of a sporting event after it has commenced. 'Betting on the run' is also prohibited because it involves betting on a sporting event after it has commenced. These types of betting are the most harmful form of online wagering. Other forms of online wagering are not prohibited by the legislation. Online wagering on non-sporting events is not prohibited by the IGA. See? Online wagering on non-sporting events is not prohibited. C'mon, let's play. regards, alexander. It's not prohibited, but I still think you need a license: In other words, a service that is exempt under the Commonwealth Interactive Gambling Act 2001 is not necessarily exempt from State or Territory law. Conversely, a service may be prohibited under the Commonwealth Act, even if it is licensed or authorised under State or Territory law. - and in NSW you need a permit. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages
On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote: What the? andrew
Re: Squiz.net Open Source License - is it free?
This has started a long thread on the Linux Australia mailing list linux-aus - see http://lists.linux.org.au for archives. Please discuss there as Avi Miller (a Squiz employee) is on the list and arguing to the MD to release it under the GPL. andrew On 2/8/06, Avi Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Purser wrote: This appears to be a good faq for the information you're looking for: Yup, that's great. Good explanation of the three thought tests used by the Debian-legal team. Thanks for the input. Avi -- National Manager - Special Projects Sydney / Melbourne / Canberra / Hobart / London / 2/340 Gore Street T: +61 (0) 3 9486 0411 Fitzroy, VIC F: +61 (0) 3 9486 0611 3202 W: http://www.squiz.net/ . Open Source - Own it - Squiz.net ./ -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Squiz.net Open Source License - is it free?
And they say they support open source. Just looking at the fact that they require notification of modification is non-free, then the poorly written clauses, etc. Software under this license and the 'open source' banner will now be implemented by businesses and even the Australian government, when it is clearly non-free. I'll email Squiz with these issues and see what they say. andrew On 2/3/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the most non-free and poorly written licenses I've seen pass the list in a long time. On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:47:39AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: (a) You must not introduce any virus, worm, trojan horse or malicious code into the Software; Free Software must allow transforming the software in any way, even ones which the author considers reprehensible. Free Software has its own inherent defenses against such things; it doesn't need to bend arms legally, too. however, this Licence applies, and You must ensure that it continues to apply, to each part of the Software (including Modifications of it) despite any such distribution or use. This sounds like it's requiring me to enforce the license, which is unacceptable. This Licence does not apply to any computer program other than the Software, even if that program is distributed along with the Software. What if it does--eg. I'm packaging two Squiz.Net applications side by side? This is a poorly drafted version of the GPL's mere aggregation clause. 1.4 If You distribute all or part of the Software You must do so in source code form (regardless of whether you also distribute an object code form). This is very poorly written. It seems to say you may not distribute object form, source code only--regardless of whether you distribute object code, which is a contradiction. 2. Intellectual Property 2.1 You agree that Squiz.Net controls all intellectual property rights (including copyright) in every aspect of the Software, including source code and related documentation. If this is saying you acknowledge that we hold copyright on the things we hold copyright to, then it's a no-op. Text later in the license suggests this is not the case. But it says agree, and every aspect of the Software seems to include modifications. It's saying you agree that we hold copyright to your modifications. That's not acceptable. (In the US, it's also not binding, since copyright transfer must be made in writing, but I have no idea about the rest of the world, including including Australia.) 2.2 Where Squiz.Net has created source code of Software, we believe that it does not infringe another person's copyright, but we make no representations as to patent infringement. The license requires that *we* make representations about patent infringement, demanding that we represent that we don't know of any. It's hypocritical to demand that we do so, while explicitly not doing so themselves. 2.3 It is Your responsibility to investigate and obtain permission from the holder of any patent for use of any patent used by the Software and to pay any royalties to the patent holder in connection with Your use of such a patent. However, to avoid doubt, the rights in If this is intended as a statement of fact, then it's also a no-op. If it's saying to comply with this copyright license, you must also comply with patents, then it's not. clauses 1.1 and 1.2 include a right to use all relevant patents held by Squiz.Net or which are assigned or licensed to Squiz.Net under clause 2 of this Licence or under clause 2 of a licence by Squiz.Net to another user on the terms of this Licence. This is the only good thing about this license: an explicit patent license. 2.4 If You alter, modify or add to the Software, You are expected to assign all of Your intellectual property rights (including copyright and patent rights) in any Modifications to Squiz.Net including copyright in any compilation comprised of any part of the original source code of the Software and Your Modifications to the Software. If you agree to assign the copyright of Your Modifications, Squiz will grant You and every other user of the Software a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free, non-revokable, non-exclusive licence to use the Modifications. If this is a requirement, then it's unacceptable. I have no idea what you are expected means in a license. It seems like they're either making up phraseology as they go along, or like Australian copyrights are wildly different from anything I've seen. If they merely mean we really want you to do this, but you don't have to, then it's another no-op. Note that upstream developers are perfectly free to say we will not incorporate any of your modifications into our codebase unless you sign over the copyright to us. The FSF does that. 2.5 You agree to waive all moral rights that You may have in any Modifications You
