Re: Distribution of media content together with GPLv2 code in one package?
In message 20100424232537.8e656ac4@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes Walter - Would you like to have an apple, a pear, or an orange? Carl - I would prefer having a chocolate cake! Walter - You can have the chocolate cake, as well, but which fruit would you prefer among apples, pears, and oranges? Carl - An apple, please. The fact the Carl prefers cakes over fruits does *not* mean that there is *no* fruit which he prefers (over other fruits)... M You do know, of course, that the W in my sig stands for Walter? :-) Let's say it's Carl asking the question, this Walter's (true) answer, actually, would be none, thanks, fruit makes me sick :-) So you are going from the specific (you have a favourite fruit) to the general (everyone has a favourite fruit), and getting it wrong. Sorry. That was the point further back about a program having multiple authors yet still being a coherent work. You can't necessarily do that with art. I am not convinced that you cannot do that with art. There are many examples of works of art with multiple authors. The Iliad and the Odyssey come to mind, for instance (as you probably know, many modern scholars believe that Homer never existed as a single historical poet: poems attributed to him are believed to be the result of the assembling and successive modifying of several stories that were at first transmitted orally). Thing is, we know these are works with multiple authors. And we can tell when works of art have a single author. That's why I get rather annoyed when people want me to write something for them, and then start hacking it about - I don't care whether they write it, or I write it, I object to the mess that results when we both write it. Anyway, I don't think this point is relevant for our discussion. How do you define work? :-) That was Ben's point in response to my post, and I think it's relevant here. I'll address his point here, but he chooses a recording for his example. Let's say I write and recite a poem. Is the work the poem, or the recording? If I say it's the poem, then the recording contains the source. And if you say the work is the recording and modify it, then as far as I'm concerned you've destroyed the work, it is no longer a coherent whole. Why should I help you? My wife's just interrupted me, and I think she's accidentally given me the correct answer. There is no such thing as 'source' for an artistic work. Programming is maths, and as such there is a direct correlation between the version we can understand, and the version the computer can understand - they are equivalent but different. There's no such similarity for art. :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/neoafjroaj1lf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
Re: Distribution of media content together with GPLv2 code in one package?
In message 878w8ij1hm@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes Joining in late ... If I understand Francesco right, he is pointing out that the work most likely to be distributed is the very first one mentioned above: the digitally-encoded audio. That work can be modified by editing the digital audio data in an appropriate program, which thus creates a derived work of the existing digital audio. The GPL says *preferred* form for modification. Part of the problem is clearly that the above is NOT the preferred form. Re-creating the audio recording from scratch, as Rudolf describes, would be a new copyright work, and I agree that it's disingenuous to describe this as “editing”. It would be a derived work of the copyrighted words, musical arrangement, etc.; but it is less clear what its copyright relationship to the previous digital audio data would be. THIS is the preferred form. This is crux of this problem - there ISN'T a preferred form for modification. That was the point further back about a program having multiple authors yet still being a coherent work. You can't necessarily do that with art. So what do you do here? If the original author's preferred form of modification is throw it away and start again, we're in the realms of the original author can distribute without source, and nobody else can distribute, and we're effectively saying the GPL is useless for artists, which I think is the whole point of this discussion! :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/deto1lfexs0lf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
In message 20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter does not allow downgrading to gpl2 (or upgrading to gpl3+). I think you're wrong here. Being pedantic, NO version of the GPL allows regrading. It's the grant of licence that allows the regrading. Is this intentional? No. Because the grant of licence DOES allow regrading, therefore what any particular version of the GPL says is irrelevant. The recipient CAN change the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant* gives him permission. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/mp+abdfeudxlf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
In message 20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. Actually, I believe choice-of-venue is unenforceable in our jurisdiction :-) Under UK law, in a person-vs-corporation situation, the person has choice of venue. END OF. Quite how that would pan out if it was a US corp, I don't know. Certainly I think, if I demanded change of venue, it would instantly make any US judgement unenforceable on me (or MJ if he demanded change of venue). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 65986059fd940d55852a9fc4350fadd5.chere...@mccme.ru, Alexander Cherepanov chere...@mccme.ru writes Hi Anthony! On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:17:48 +, Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's not an unaltered copy :-) Please don't not mix licenses and license grants:-) Let's consider it in more details: suppose I distribute your source code non-altered or non-creatively altered (so I don't have any copyright in this work) with GPLv3 attached and all references to other licenses (whether GPLv2 or BSD) stripped. AFAICS it's clearly permitted under clauses 4 and/or 5 of GPLv3. In which case, you HAVE altered my work. You've removed part of it, namely the licence grant. Not necessarily but for simplicity let's consider the case when yes, I have altered you work. Oh - and that probably is a very definite copyright violation :-) Please provide relevant quotes. I didn't grant you a licence to do that, Sure you did, it's called GPLv3. In that case, seeing as you're taking the work to INCLUDE the licence grant, I assume the work also includes the licence? In which case I've just given you permission to alter the GPL :-) Which I *haven't* because I *can't*. I granted you a licence to alter the program :-) You take the position that the program != the work? I'm suprised. No. I'm taking the position that the licence *grant*, like the licence *itself*, is OUTSIDE of the work. I don't actually see how it can, legally, be part of the work itself, seeing as it's granting permissions to the work. And as someone else in this thread said, if they get one copy via one route that is GPL, and another via another route that is BSD, they think they can apply either licence to either copy. This is a very vague area. The copyright covers works, not copies. Accordingly GPL applies to works, not copies. So it doesn't metter which copy to use while it's the same work. But the GPL (or BSD or whatever) ONLY applies if, separate from BOTH the work, AND the licence, you have a document that tells you that the licence applies to the work. But as far as I am concerned, legal niceties aside, if I dual-licence my work (such as, let's say, making it GPL v2+), if you strip off the v2 and change it to v3+ you are misrepresenting me to my users, I don't misrepresent you, I don't represent you at all. I just pass your work under GPLv3 and don't imply that you have licensed it under GPLv3 only in the first place. Well, you MUST use GPLv3, or GPLv2, or GPL-whatever, to pass the work on. If your argument is correct, as I have said repeatedly, the mere act of passing on a v2+ work (*completely* *unaltered*) would, before v3 came out, have stripped the plus permission because it would have been distributed under v2. and you are stripping my users of the rights I granted them. Doesn't the GPL 2 itself say you mustn't impose further restrictions? Sure. And requirement to pass arbitrary license grants from original author is exactly further restriction. So you cannot require it (if you want your program to be distributable). But that is a requirement *I* am imposing on *you* (which, as copyright holder, I can do). Licence requirements NEVER apply to the copyright holder. So I *can* require it of you. What is removing the option to use v2, if not an unpermitted further restriction? Then let's see what GPLv2 really says about it. From section 6: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ^ So I cannot impose restrictions outside GPLv2, not outside some license grant. But without the licence grant, the GPLv2 doesn't apply. You seem to be assuming the licence grant is unimportant. No grant, no licence! While this may be a legal grey area, it isn't a grey moral area - it's just unacceptable. I fully agree that it's important question. And would like to see some solid base here. Unfortunately, for now, I only see appeals to judge's common sense, morality etc. Actually, as you can see, I'm convinced it's NOT a grey area. The licence grant tells you that you can use the licence with relation to the work. Therefore, the three (the licence, the grant and the work) are *legally* *separate*. Therefore, while the GPL gives you permission to alter the work, it does not give you permission to alter the (legally separate from the work) licence grant, which tells you that you have that permission! Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 7fdf4c21068c1acb3ed732c0cf862c1e.chere...@mccme.ru, Alexander Cherepanov chere...@mccme.ru writes Hi Anthony! On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:03:45 +, Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's not an unaltered copy :-) Please don't not mix licenses and license grants:-) Let's consider it in more details: suppose I distribute your source code non-altered or non-creatively altered (so I don't have any copyright in this work) with GPLv3 attached and all references to other licenses (whether GPLv2 or BSD) stripped. AFAICS it's clearly permitted under clauses 4 and/or 5 of GPLv3. In which case, you HAVE altered my work. You've removed part of it, ^^^ namely the licence grant. Not necessarily but for simplicity let's consider the case when yes, I have altered you work. Oh - and that probably is a very definite copyright violation :-) Please provide relevant quotes. I didn't grant you a licence to do that, Sure you did, it's called GPLv3. In that case, seeing as you're taking the work to INCLUDE the licence grant, No, that's you who said that the work includes the license grant -- see above, underlined. I assume the work also includes the licence? No. In which case I've just given you permission to alter the GPL :-) Which I *haven't* because I *can't*. Sure. I granted you a licence to alter the program :-) You take the position that the program != the work? I'm suprised. No. I'm taking the position that the licence *grant*, like the licence *itself*, is OUTSIDE of the work. I don't actually see how it can, legally, be part of the work itself, seeing as it's granting permissions to the work. Ah, so you changed your position. Well, it doesn't matter whether the license grant is part of the work or not. If it is, it can be modified according to GPL. If it is not, GPL doesn't require to distribute it. Let's assume the GPL doesn't require it to be distributed. So you distribute a copy of my code, and a copy of the GPL. What right does your recipient have to distribute my code? They have two separate works, the GPL and my code, and NOTHING to link the two. So they can't distribute my code, because they have nothing that says they can. They have nothing that says the GPL that you gave them applies to the code (mine) that you gave them. And as someone else in this thread said, if they get one copy via one route that is GPL, and another via another route that is BSD, they think they can apply either licence to either copy. This is a very vague area. The copyright covers works, not copies. Accordingly GPL applies to works, not copies. So it doesn't metter which copy to use while it's the same work. But the GPL (or BSD or whatever) ONLY applies if, separate from BOTH the work, AND the licence, you have a document that tells you that the licence applies to the work. Even if so, this only requires that you need two copies of such documents, not two copies of the work. But as far as I am concerned, legal niceties aside, if I dual-licence my work (such as, let's say, making it GPL v2+), if you strip off the v2 and change it to v3+ you are misrepresenting me to my users, I don't misrepresent you, I don't represent you at all. I just pass your work under GPLv3 and don't imply that you have licensed it under GPLv3 only in the first place. Well, you MUST use GPLv3, or GPLv2, or GPL-whatever, to pass the work on. Yes. If your argument is correct, as I have said repeatedly, the mere act of passing on a v2+ work (*completely* *unaltered*) would, before v3 came out, have stripped the plus permission because it would have been distributed under v2. No. That's unreleated question. Whether it's possible to modify license grant doesn't matter when it's not modified. and you are stripping my users of the rights I granted them. Doesn't the GPL 2 itself say you mustn't impose further restrictions? Sure. And requirement to pass arbitrary license grants from original author is exactly further restriction. So you cannot require it (if ^^ you want your program to be distributable). ^ But that is a requirement *I* am imposing on *you* (which, as copyright holder, I can do). Licence requirements NEVER apply to the copyright holder. So I *can* require it of you. Sure, that's why I added the part in the parentheses -- see above. What is removing the option to use v2, if not an unpermitted further restriction? Then let's see what GPLv2 really says about it. From section 6: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 9f4091d0c9afc9ede2ecc519bd6830bb.chere...@mccme.ru, Alexander Cherepanov chere...@mccme.ru writes Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's not an unaltered copy :-) Please don't not mix licenses and license grants:-) Let's consider it in more details: suppose I distribute your source code non-altered or non-creatively altered (so I don't have any copyright in this work) with GPLv3 attached and all references to other licenses (whether GPLv2 or BSD) stripped. AFAICS it's clearly permitted under clauses 4 and/or 5 of GPLv3. In which case, you HAVE altered my work. You've removed part of it, namely the licence grant. Oh - and that probably is a very definite copyright violation :-) I didn't grant you a licence to do that, I granted you a licence to alter the program :-) And as someone else in this thread said, if they get one copy via one route that is GPL, and another via another route that is BSD, they think they can apply either licence to either copy. This is a very vague area. But as far as I am concerned, legal niceties aside, if I dual-licence my work (such as, let's say, making it GPL v2+), if you strip off the v2 and change it to v3+ you are misrepresenting me to my users, and you are stripping my users of the rights I granted them. Doesn't the GPL 2 itself say you mustn't impose further restrictions? What is removing the option to use v2, if not an unpermitted further restriction? While this may be a legal grey area, it isn't a grey moral area - it's just unacceptable. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 9f4091d0c9afc9ede2ecc519bd6830bb.chere...@mccme.ru, Alexander Cherepanov chere...@mccme.ru writes Basically, you can choose which licence you want to apply to YOU. But you pass on my package as a whole (including my permission to choose which licence). So that's where your recipients get the same choices you got. I pass your code and GPLv3, there is no requirement to pass your full license grant. Just spotted something important :-) WITHOUT MY COPYING FILE your recipient has no evidence that the GPLv3 bears any relevance to my code. You've just stripped all licencing from my code and that MOST DEFINITELY IS a pretty blatant GPL violation! So to sum up, the GPL (whatever variant) is meaningless on its own. Passing the code on without my licencing grant is a GPL violation. And the GPL does NOT give you permission to change my grant. My grant does give you the right to choose which licence applies to YOU. In fact, as I said elsewhere, you HAVE TO CHOOSE A SPECIFIC licence to apply to you. If you choosing a specific licence stripped your recipients' right to choose which licence applied to them, there would be no point to the or any later version wording because that would be invalid for any recipient beyond the first person to get it direct from the copyright holder. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 20091217024135.af5a9f7...@nail.towers.org.uk, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes Andrew Dalke wrote: On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was blind. [...] Read it for yourself, make sure you've got a copy of the GPL next you so you can *check* every reference he makes, and see if you come to the same conclusion I did, namely that the black letter of the GPL flatly contradicted the core assumption on which a large part of this book is based. You haven't read it and you made that conclusion? It sounds like you are promulgating hearsay and rumor. There's a free online copy which I linked to, and if what you are saying is right then it should be easy to point out some of the contradictions. This part followed if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it. Maybe the contradictions aren't in the part of the book linked, but elsewhere in the book read. The link seemed to be to a PDF of part of a book and Anthony W. Youngman wrote that he couldn't be bothered to read it. Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.) Spot on. I tried to get back to find the TOC of the book, but once I stripped the page url, all I got was the home page, with no useful links I could find to get at the rest of the book. Further, Anthony W. Youngman isn't the only debian-legal contributor to think Larry Rosen's interpretations should not be taken wholesale, nor the only one who can't give full citations because those impressions were formed by interactions as much as literature. I'm another and I'm pretty sure there are others. Okay, I'll explain LONG-hand my problems with Larry. His critique of the GPL is based *entirely* on the premise that the GPL *implicitly* allows sublicensing. The GPL itself in black letter states if the GPL does not explicitly allow sublicencing, then it isn't allowed (not an exact quote I'll admit ... but it's what the GPL says). I think I pointed to that very clause ... I'm sorry, but if a lawyer can't understand BASIC legalese, then I don't trust them to be able to understand anything else! Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- 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
In message 20091216233823.af491478@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is used? Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietary derivative works... CLOSED derivative works. If it's copyright, it's proprietary. proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 76e62a33-41da-414c-a485-7819eb35f...@dalkescientific.com, Andrew Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com writes On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message f4ccec28-fe42-4af3-b0c0-c832a6b0d...@dalkescientific.com, Andrew Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com writes I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and by doing so you are taking away user rights. Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL... IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!! Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY. I didn't realize this was such a hot point to need the use of capital letters. Sorry. But this does press one of my hot buttons. There's an awful lot of people around who don't properly grok the GPL. (And you might guess I read groklaw avidly, where there's a lot of emphasis on getting things right.) I've made a lot of mistakes understanding the GPL, and been set right both on groklaw and here, and it's made me a bit fanatical about making sure other people get it right too... Pretend I said LGPL instead of GPL. In that case I can talk about relicensing, yes, since the LGPL explicitly allows relicensing to the GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#compat-matrix-footnote-7 7: LGPLv2.1 gives you permission to relicense the code under any version of the GPL since GPLv2. If you can switch the LGPLed code in this case to using an appropriate version of the GPL instead (as noted in the table), you can make this combination. I didn't realise the LGPL allowed that! Still, I've never really gone near it - all my experience with licencing has been to do with the GPL. LGPL is, after all, the Lesser GPL. In v3 the LGPL is specifically designed to give additional permissions than those of the GPL. You talked about how relicensing takes away user rights but in that case relicensing from LGPL to GPL is more taking away user permissions, yes? Yes, I'd agree with you there. But I think there it's only LGPL 2.1. Talking out of my hat here, the GPL v2 and LGPL v2.1 are different licences, so allowing the LGPL to be converted to the GPL makes sense. After all, rms isn't keen on the LGPL - it's just a useful stepping stone on the way to full GPL as far as he's concerned. And having seen that, I'd be rather wary of the LGPL 2.1! As you say, LGPL 3 just gives extra permissions over and above GPL 3, so if you mix the two licences the combination is just GPL 3 - no relicencing required :-) Still, the LGPL is designed to be relicensed to the GPL. What about something which doesn't have a built-in relicensing? Pretend I had said GFDL instead of GPL, in which case this quote from Stallman is highly relevant: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-fdl-open-letter The relicensing option in GFDL 1.3 is fully consistent with the spirit and purpose of the GFDL. Stallman used the term 'relicense' several times in that open letter, and as a highly-visible response to the accusations of misdeeds during the GFDL/CC-BY-SA change, where 1.3 has an explicit section titled RELICENSING while 1.2 did not. He cannot have used it by mistake or as a poor word choice. Does that relicensing take away any user rights which are part of the spirit and purpose of the GFDL? (It does obviously take away the right to revert the license to 1.2, but is that an important right?) Let's go back to what I originally wrote - I'm wary of relicencing. While I don't think rms has done anything wrong (as far as I can see he has just enabled switching from one strong-copyleft licence to another), it still throws up the spectre of relicencing! That's why, actually, given the choice of LGPL 2.1 or 3, much as I haven't investigated 3 very much, I'll almost certainly prefer 3 to 2.1 because it means other people CAN'T relicence my code :-) Let's say I write a load of code, and release it with a notice saying this code is licenced as 'GPL version 2 or later' . The FSF suggests that you should write it thusly: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Okay, I'd use the FSF-recommended wording, fine. (Actually, personal choice, I'd probably take a leaf out of Linus' book and use the wording either version 2 or version 3.) But note, the GPL *itself* says that the recipient gets their licence from *me*. And the licence I would grant is 2+ or 2 or 3. Compare to the suggested text for the GFDL Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message ded71701-a16b-4597-ac48-b1e0f7916...@dalkescientific.com, Andrew Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com writes On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message f4ccec28-fe42-4af3-b0c0-c832a6b0d...@dalkescientific.com, Andrew Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com writes Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL... IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!! Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY. Here is relevant commentary in Rosen's book Open Source Licensing book at http://rosenlaw.com/Rosen%5FCh06.pdf OMG! Larry Rosen! I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was blind. Read it for yourself, make sure you've got a copy of the GPL next to you so you can *check* every reference he makes, and see if you come to the same conclusion I did, namely that the black letter of the GPL flatly contradicted the core assumption on which a large part of this book is based. Oh - and I've more than enough experience of lawyers who's grasp of the law appears tenuous, I don't kow-tow to them until they've earnt my respect. (I respect them as a *person* until they *earn* my respect as a lawyer. If this is who I think he is, he lost that ... :-( Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message e2301abde0ad8a5dfe21279f96b8fda6.chere...@mccme.ru, Alexander Cherepanov chere...@mccme.ru writes Hi Anthony! On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:24:36 +, Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL... IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!! Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY. Let's say I write a load of code, and release it with a notice saying this code is licenced as 'GPL version 2 or later' . Typical dual-license scenario, good. Could you please elaborate some more how both licenses propagates in this case? This seems to be a very common notion but it's not clear to me. What this give YOU is the right to redistribute the code according to the terms of the GPL v3. BUT - READ THE GPL - the people to whom you give the code get their licence from ME, NOT YOU. Right, this is section 6 of GPLv2 of section 10 of GPLv3. Let's quote the latter: 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients. Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. [...] And I granted the licence as v2 or later. The text of the GPL says subject to this License, i.e. GPLv3, not subject to all Licenses. So I don't see how your conclusion follows. As I said in another post, you're confusing the licence *grant* with the licence *itself*. Let's say I write some software and - as I would - I stick a notice that says this software is licenced v2 or v3. That is my grant. You now look at the code. You like v3, so you say v3 is my licence and distribute it as v3. Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of them can say actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence. Now let's say you write some code, add it to my work to make a derivative work and, being a trusting bloke your grant says your code is v3 or later. You can choose to distribute the code under v2 or v3, because you need to comply with my grant for my code. You can do what you like with your own code. Your recipients, now, can ONLY distribute under V3 ONLY. They can choose v2 for my code, but that won't let them distribute yours, so they can't distribute the derivative work under v2. They can choose v4 (when it comes out) for your code, but that won't let them distribute mine, so they can't use that for the derivative work. They CAN choose v3 which is valid for both your code, and mine, so the project COPYING file should say the only licence valid for the work as a whole is v3, but individual parts have their own licence and may be copied under a different licence, if appropriate. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message e15688105c664a6bde658d2ac687ad82.chere...@mccme.ru, Alexander Cherepanov chere...@mccme.ru writes Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of them can say actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence. Why do you think that my recipients will get your entire grant? GPLv3 only says that they will get your grant for _this_ License, i.e. GPLv3. WHERE does it say that? But in that case, as soon as you distribute my code using GPL2 as your licence, YOU have STOPPED them distributing under version 3! That argument cuts both ways! Actually, that then totally destroys the whole point of v3 or later if you choosing v3 takes away your recipients rights to choose according to the original author's grant! I've just checked v3, and it contains the same gets your licence from the original licensor wording as v2, so they get their grant from me, and you don't have the right (or ability) to change what I grant. At the end of the day, YOU need a licence to distribute my code. My grant gives you a choice of v2 or v3. Whether you choose v2 or v3, your recipient then gets the same grant as you did, and they can also choose v2 or v3. If your choice of v3 took away your recipients choice of v2 I would consider that a VERY retrograde step. But at the end of the day, it's simple. If I say v2 or v3 then I granted EVERY recipient of my code the right to *choose*. Both v2 and v3 are explicit that your recipients get their rights from ME not you, so your choice of v3 does not constrain their right to choose. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 06db76b9-3d28-44ab-82c8-e23917bf3...@dalkescientific.com, Andrew Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com writes On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: (And you might guess I read groklaw avidly, where there's a lot of emphasis on getting things right.) Sorry, but I don't know what groklaw is, at least, not enough to guess about your interests in it. I'm contacting debian-legal because I don't know enough about what the details are concerning a package where the developers want it to be distributed as part of Debian. It's a law site, where SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM, Novell and Linux in general is getting thoroughly dissected. If you're not interested then fair enough, but copyright and the GPL in particular are very important there. After all, rms isn't keen on the LGPL - it's just a useful stepping stone on the way to full GPL as far as he's concerned. And having seen that, I'd be rather wary of the LGPL 2.1! For what it's worth, the authors of these packages I'm talking about want LGPL and are removing all traces of GPL-licensed code from their package. While I'm more of an BSD/MIT kinda person. The subject line of this post is also about the LGPL, so I'm really diverting things by going into a GPL discussion. Sounds weird to me you're deferring to rms then :-) While he'd defend your *right* to choose BSD/MIT or LGPL, he'd be very sorry about your choice - you should be choosing GPL :-) Let's go back to what I originally wrote - I'm wary of relicencing. While I don't think rms has done anything wrong (as far as I can see he has just enabled switching from one strong-copyleft licence to another), it still throws up the spectre of relicencing! Or the more complete quote I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and by doing so you are taking away user rights. I still would like to know what user rights I'm taking away by relicensing. Stallman seems to think that relicensing is acceptable under some circumstances so long as the essential rights are preserved, which include the rights supported by GNU and the FSF. And those are the rights your choice of licences do NOT preserve. Bearing in mind that, above my quote, I also wrote that I thought the artistic licence was close to BSD (ie not strong copyleft). You can relicence BSD as closed source - where are your essential rights now? I obviously thought something similar could happen with artistic. (looking at it - especially artistic 2 - in more detail, I see that it's far more strong copyleft than I thought.) (I say essential rights because that is what Stallman used. There are obviously differences between the licenses.) Okay, I'd use the FSF-recommended wording, fine. (Actually, personal choice, I'd probably take a leaf out of Linus' book and use the wording either version 2 or version 3.) One of the projects I work with uses source code which was explicitly GPL version 2 only. Now they are starting to have problems integrating with GPLv3 software and they are considering if a massive rewrite is in order. Well, linux itself is explicitly v2 only :-) And I'd follow Linus lead and be very wary of the or later wording. I'd actually (with hindsight :-) do it differently and say that any version of the GPL extant * as of the copyright date * could be used. But note, the GPL *itself* says that the recipient gets their licence from *me*. And the licence I would grant is 2+ or 2 or 3. I pointed out the quote from a copyright lawyer with a special interest in free software who said that the GPL was ambiguous about sublicensing and if a chain of licenses was required or not. I see the GPL explicitly agrees with me, not Larry Rosen :-) !!! This is the GPL v3 - read the last section of 2. Basic Permissions : Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary. Now let's look at section 10 ... 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients. Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License. This is exactly the section (maybe worded, certainly numbered, differently) that I have repeatedly been referring to from the GPL v2. Oh - and the GFDL 1.2 does *not* allow relicensing to CC-BY-SA. Your legal logic has slipped up. You've made the elementary error of confusing the *grant* of licence with the licence *itself*. If I use the recommended wording from GNU, which is what I quoted and was using as a reference, then the phrase is Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; Obviously if the license says 1.2 and leaves out that provision for sublicensing/ relicening
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 20091214220044.1cc797d6@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:36:58 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote: [...] That's why, actually, given the choice of LGPL 2.1 or 3, much as I haven't investigated 3 very much, I'll almost certainly prefer 3 to 2.1 because it means other people CAN'T relicence my code :-) Please note that adopting the LGPLv3 makes the work not linkable with GPLv2 (only) works. If you choose the LGPL in order to obtain a weak copyleft that allows linking with proprietary code, forbidding linking with GPLv2 code looks a bit awkward... I'd add an exception to LGPL 3 :-) Actually, I'd probably choose pure GPL 2 or 3 :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
points and two lines of clarification text in your original reply. Sorry. That's just my writing style when I want to be emphatic. I know. But I was trying to respond to what I perceived as your reasons for bringing this into the issue. I'm bringing it into the issue because I think your statement that relicensing takes away rights is incorrect. Some relicensing does, but others do not. I then gave examples. And I can understand why those owners became perturbed. Because they had chosen GFDL and were shocked that *someone* *else* could change that to CC. I would be shocked. Which is why I prefer licences that DON'T allow relicencing. Then be shocked. But the GNU licenses do allow relicensing, as I've pointed out in the LGPL and the GFDL. That you don't like them doesn't mean that they aren't still free licenses designed to not take away rights. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Will the BLACK LETTER of the GPL convince you otherwise? The statement in v3 that sublicensing is not permitted? The statement in both v2 and v3 that - if it's MY code, your recipients get their licence from ME not you? Except that the above text is NOT PART OF THE LICENCE. If this is true then I can no longer make any statements about the license. The above text (If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License ... ) comes from 14. Revised Versions of this License. in the section labeled Terms And Conditions. If that is not part of the license then I don't know what makes something part of the license. To quote you fully: the above text is NOT PART OF THE LICENCE. Yes, it's included in the licence text but legally it has absolutely nothing to do with the licence itself. It's just a recommendation as to the text of the licence *grant* - a legally separate entity - which you need to have as well as the licence itself before you have the right to do anything otherwise forbidden by copyright law. If this section is not part of the license then which other parts of the TC are not part of the license? Is it only section 14 which has absolutely nothing to do with the license itself? Or can I also ignore section 8? Section 3? My best interpretation is that you did not read what I wrote and assumed I repeated the text which suggests how to word the grant. Section 14 is obviously a section on how to interpret the grant. Correct :-( Mind you, I wonder how a Judge would interpret it ... If the Program just said GPL and the grant just said GPL, would the Judge say okay, you can choose v3 and v3 gives you the right to choose v1 or v2, or would he say the grant is ambiguous therefore invalid, or would he say seeing as it doesn't specify a version, the only reasonable assumption is it means 'the only version' and the only one that ever satisfied that was v1. So. Does section 14 actually make legal sense? Me dunno ... but it was written by a lawyer ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message ab9c74f8aa8f5d509d7617b49633a35b.chere...@mccme.ru, Alexander Cherepanov chere...@mccme.ru writes Hi Anthony! On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:44:35 +, Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of them can say actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence. Why do you think that my recipients will get your entire grant? GPLv3 only says that they will get your grant for _this_ License, i.e. GPLv3. WHERE does it say that? In section 10 (GPLv3): 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients. Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. [...] ^^^ GPLv2 says effectively the same: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to ^^ these terms and conditions. [...] ^^ But in that case, as soon as you distribute my code using GPL2 as your licence, YOU have STOPPED them distributing under version 3! That argument cuts both ways! Sure. Actually, that then totally destroys the whole point of v3 or later if you choosing v3 takes away your recipients rights to choose according to the original author's grant! They are always free to get the program directly from original author (put aside the case of a program combined from different sources for a moment:-). Then they have a choice of license. But the law (generally) given the choice between a sensible interpretation, and an alternative that is either ludicrous or obviously not what was intended, will *usually* choose the sensible one. Some variation of the scenario: suppose your grant is this software is licensed under BSD or GPLv3 and I choose GPLv3. Does this mean that my recipients still get BSD or GPLv3? Given that, imho, BSD doesn't permit relicencing either, yes your recipients do get that choice. As soon as you modify my code, they then only get GPLv3 (unless they strip your modifications out). Yet another variation: suppose you licensed your program to Alice under BSD and to Bob under GPLv3. Does recipients which get your program from Bob get BSD or GPLv3 or just GPLv3? Bob's recipients get just GPLv3. That's all he got, that's all he can pass on. To make it even worse, if somebody got one copy from Alice and one from Bob, I guess technically they'd have to keep the two copies (and associated licences) separate unless they contacted me and got my permission to combine them! I've just checked v3, and it contains the same gets your licence from the original licensor wording as v2, so they get their grant from me, and you don't have the right (or ability) to change what I grant. I hope quotes above explain what I mean. At the end of the day, YOU need a licence to distribute my code. My grant gives you a choice of v2 or v3. Whether you choose v2 or v3, your recipient then gets the same grant as you did, Sorry, I don't see where it comes from. Basically, you can choose which licence you want to apply to YOU. But you pass on my package as a whole (including my permission to choose which licence). So that's where your recipients get the same choices you got. and they can also choose v2 or v3. If your choice of v3 took away your recipients choice of v2 I would consider that a VERY retrograde step. I agree and would be happy to learn where I'm wrong. But at the end of the day, it's simple. If I say v2 or v3 then I granted EVERY recipient of my code the right to *choose*. Yes, if they receive from you directly. Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's not an unaltered copy :-) Both v2 and v3 are explicit that your recipients get their rights from ME not you, so your choice of v3 does not constrain their right to choose. Alexander Cherepanov Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message 20091212142624.gl10...@matthew.ath.cx, Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes My understanding is that mixing the Artistic License and LGPL 2.1 is not possible. I base this primarily on the FSF statement that they consider the Artistic License to be incompatible with the GPL. I have not found a statement about compatibility between the Artistic License the LGPL. GPL is definitely != LGPL in this area, but I'd appreciate other comments on the issue I tried to read and understand the Artistic License but I got confused. The simplest conflict seems to be that the Artistic License says You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. where Package refers to the collection of files distributed by the Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created through textual modification. This is in conflict with the LGPL 2.1 clause You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy. This may well be a problem for combining things into a single package, but I would not have thought it was an issue for things in different packages. I have talked with one of the authors of JUMBO/CML and they may be willing to relicense under the Artistic License 2.0. In doing the research for that I read that the FSF considers the 2.0 license compatible with the GPL because of the relicensing clause 4(c)(ii), which allows the GPL. In this case the whole work would be distributed under the full GPL, not the LGPL I may (well) be wrong, but I've always understood the INTENT of the artistic licence to be BSD plus a trademark licence. But, if the JUMBO/CML people are happy, why not ask them to add an extra permission, or dual-licence. If they are the copyright holders (and therefore able to change the licence from Artistic to Artistic 2), they could always change the licence to Artistic 1 or LGPL2.1 if they wanted. If, however, they do change to Artistic 2 (probably a good idea, the original Artistic licence has been slated as being very poor legalese) ... If it is possible to relicense and be compatible with the LGPL 2.1, the main CDK developer wants to know how to relicense the software. Does he need to make a specific source release of JUMBO/CML under the LGPL 2.1 then turn around and use it inside of his code? Or can CDK include the JUMBO/CML code and just state somewhere inside the CDK documentation Originally under the Artistic License 2.0 and relicensed under clause 4(c)(ii) to the LGPL 2.1? I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and by doing so you are taking away user rights. If you're distributing JUMBO/CML code *unchanged*, what I'd do is to keep it separate inside the package (in its own directory or something), and in the CDK documentation state that you are distributing JUMBO/CML under the LGPL as permitted by 4(c)(ii) of the Artistic licence. That way, you're leaving (the licence of) JUMBO/CML unchanged, but distributing CDK (including JUMBO/CML) under the LGPL. And the recipient of CDK can strip JUMBO/CML out of it and use it under the Artistic licence as the author intended. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message f4ccec28-fe42-4af3-b0c0-c832a6b0d...@dalkescientific.com, Andrew Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com writes I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and by doing so you are taking away user rights. Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL... IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!! Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY. Let's say I write a load of code, and release it with a notice saying this code is licenced as 'GPL version 2 or later' . What this give YOU is the right to redistribute the code according to the terms of the GPL v3. BUT - READ THE GPL - the people to whom you give the code get their licence from ME, NOT YOU. And I granted the licence as v2 or later. So, AT NO POINT WHATSOEVER, does my code become v3, whatever you say or do. If you modify my code and licence your stuff as v3, the resulting work then becomes v3-only because the licence of the work as a whole is the subset of the individual licences - here v3 - but my code still remains v2+. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Skype/Facebook trademark logos in Debian packages
In message hev0h8$ui...@ger.gmane.org, Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com writes Now I looka at the other extreme. In theory, with copyright if you independently create a work that happens to be absolutely identical (say letter by letter or pixel by pixel), without even knowing about the other work, then the result is two works each with a seperate copyright that just happen to be indistinguishable. Of course that is scholarly theory, and the law in the real world is ill equiped to handle such a possibility. This, of course, can easily happen with photography :-) (I speak loosly above, talking about a work having a copyright. I obviously mean that the authors or some other rights holder (such as in the case of a work for hire) being granted a limited monopoly on repdoucing the work, among other things.) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL versions mismatch.
In message heciro$o0...@ger.gmane.org, Raúl Sánchez Siles rasas...@gmail.com writes Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message he7933$tg...@ger.gmane.org, Raúl Sánchez Siles rasas...@gmail.com writes From what you've said, I think the way forward is apparent. As you surmise, accepting GPL v3 contributions isn't possible with the current project status saying the project licence is v2. Actually, I think you COULD accept v3 contributions, but to do so you'd need to change the project licence to v3. ...Or to v2+, if I understood correctly. No. In that case you're granting permissions that the author didn't grant. Think about it ... You're given a load of code that is licenced v3+ plus OpenSSL exemption. You then put it into a v2+ project ... BIG NO NO. You've just gone and told all your recipients they can distribute as per GPL v2 - something the v3 author did NOT give you permission to do! This brings me a question: if the code is already GPLv2+, who is to take the decision of stating that the whole project is GPLv2+?. If each contributor agreed that the code is already GPLv2+, why shouldn't the project already be considered GPLv2+? No reason why not. BUT there is a further copyright to be considered - the compilation copyright. I'm not sure whether that's its official name, but think of a book of verse. The poets own the individual copyrights to the poems, the publisher owns the copyright to the book. The compilation copyright in this project is, therefore, owned by the project maintainer. Within the constraint that it must be a subset of the licences on the code, he can choose whatever licence he thinks fit, and he has said the compilation is v2. If he wishes to change it to v2+ he can, because that is still a subset of the licences on the code. And any recipients can pull code out of the project (including pulling ALL the code :-) and distribute that under v2+, too. So it would make sense for the project maintainer to change the project licence to v2+. (Or v2/v3 if he's a bit wary of +, like Linus.) You said that your authors at the moment are a bit chary about moving to v3, but you think it's a good idea. What's actually probably a good idea then is to say that All new contributions must be v2+ or v2/v3, in preparation for a move to v3. (Or BSD, or some other GPL-compatible (both versions) licence.) I think I got this: there can't be any GPLv3 code in the project if the project license is either GPLv2 or GPLv2+, right? Correct. Because the v2 licence on the project grants rights that the authors did NOT grant on the code. v2 is NOT a subset of v3. If I'm right, this means, that no GPLv3 code will ever be able to be used, and this includes link, unless the license is moved to GPLv3, is this right again? Correct. Because v2 is NOT a subset of v3. In this case, what happens to those embedded or linked code which is GPLv1+, for instace? No problem. Because v2 (and v3) ARE proper subsets of v1+ (note the PLUS in there :-) That doesn't alter the project's current v2 status. It DOES stop a developer throwing a spanner in the works by contributing some new v2-only code which will prevent you from relicensing. And it makes clear to developers where you are planning to go. Ok, now it's turn to convince them about the move. Cheers, Wol Thanks again for the supporting effort. -- Raúl Sánchez Siles -Proud Debian user- Linux registered user #416098 -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL versions mismatch.
In message he2uoo$om...@ger.gmane.org, Raúl Sánchez Siles rasas...@gmail.com writes The other thing is (I don't know OpenSSL) is that the GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL (which is likely) or is OpenSSL incompatible with the GPL? If it's the GPL which won't let you link to OpenSSL, then add an OpenSSL exemption to v3. As far as I know, this is not possible, in other words, incompatible. This is discussed here: Well, if that's the case, then GPL v2 plus OpenSSL exemption is also impossible :-) Bear in mind I said that it's the AUTHORS who dictate terms. If they say it's okay to link to OpenSSL, then it's okay. End of. (What the GPL says is IRRELEVANT) If all the code is licenced v2+ plus you can link to OpenSSL, then the project can relicence to v3 plus you can link to OpenSSL. At the end of the day, the question is is the GPL the problematic licence?. If it is, then the authors can grant *permissions* over and above the GPL. And it seems to me that they have. I've just looked at those two links, and all they appear to say to me is that the OpenSSL licence is incompatible with the PURE GPL v*2*. They also say that it may be compatible with v3. I assume that the idea was probably that GPLv2 was the best fit framework for the project. It would clarify some things for me. I also think that it may have stopped being the best framework for the project, because please correct me if I'm wrong, it would prevent accepting GPLv3 contributions. This would clash with the need of GPLv2 for the openssl issue. There could be other points which I fail to see and which I appreciate hearing. Besides I'm not sure I understand your latter paragraph, specially the part: then your way forward will be logically apparent. Although I understand that only code authors can change license and the best fit framework theory. From what you've said, I think the way forward is apparent. As you surmise, accepting GPL v3 contributions isn't possible with the current project status saying the project licence is v2. Actually, I think you COULD accept v3 contributions, but to do so you'd need to change the project licence to v3. You'll need to confirm this for yourself, but what you've said to me makes me think the following: 1) All the code is v2+, so changing the project licence to v3 is NOT a problem. 2) The OpenSSL problem is that the GPL v2 does not permit linking to OpenSSL. But all the authors have granted the OpenSSL-exception, so there is no problem linking with OpenSSL (and OpenSSL may be compatible with v3, but seeing as the authors have granted an exception that's irrelevant). So if you WANT to change the project licence to GPL v3 plus the OpenSSL exception there is no problem whatsoever. You can just go ahead and do it RIGHT NOW! if you wish. To re-iterate, your authors have said you can link to OpenSSL, so what the GPL (whatever version) says is irrelevant as far as linking to OpenSSL is concerned. Where I think you've got confused with the GPL is adding/subtracting permissions. The GPL is an all or nothing proposition - you can't grant SOME of the GPL rights and not others and call it GPL'd. But if you grant ALL the GPL rights, there is nothing to stop you granting MORE rights on top of the GPL rights (such as the link to OpenSSL right :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL versions mismatch.
In message 200911172213.59167.rasas...@gmail.com, Raúl Sánchez Siles rasas...@gmail.com writes Hello: The couple of guys maintaining KVIrc package this is, Kai and me, reckoned recently of a GPL version mismatch between the licence intended to apply to the whole project and the version which each source file is licensed under. We overlooked this problem for some time until the definite notice was given by Eugene Lyubimkin when we request sponsorship from him. Upstream guys have been quite receptive with our license requests, but we are not very fond of license stuff and we are not sure how to hint them. This is how licences are currently arranged in KVIrc: · Project license: GPLv2 adding openssl exception. · Source files in project: almost all GPLv2+, plus a small leftout amount with miscellaneous licenses. Maybe I'm just misleaded but I think it's somewhat confusing having a project license different to each of the project source. Ideally I would use GPLv2+ for everything, i.e., project and source files. The point is that GPLv2+ is IMHO perfectly valid for those source files, but not for the project due the fact that it links against OpenSSL. Even if upstream would be willing to relicense project under GPLv3, they wouldn't be able due to OpenSSL license incompatibility. Then relicence under v2 OR v3. In a way, that's better, anyway (take note that if upstream *does* have any v2-only code, they'll need to deal with it before they can actually relicence to include v3). The other thing is (I don't know OpenSSL) is that the GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL (which is likely) or is OpenSSL incompatible with the GPL? If it's the GPL which won't let you link to OpenSSL, then add an OpenSSL exemption to v3. There is work in progress to remove OpenSSL related code, but this will take time. Meanwhile we'd like to provide some more uploads, and advice upstream about licensing. There is also the option of considering GPLv2 for all, but KVIrc links against Qt4 and I'm not sure how this move would affect in this case. What do you think about this situation? what do you think would be the best or simplest solution? You have to bear in mind that the source file licences are whatever the authors say they are. NOBODY ELSE can change the licence - the GPL does not authorise relicencing. The project maintainers have presumably said v2 compatibility is required for all submissions, therefore the project licence is v2-only. They haven't (THEY CAN'T) impose a v2-only licence, all they've said is that the only licence guaranteed to work as a whole is v2-only. Once you've got your head round the fact that only the code AUTHORS (or rather, owners) can change the licences, and that the project licence is simply the largest proper subset of the individual licences, then your way forward will be logically apparent. Whether you like that way or not is neither here nor there. Thanks a lot, Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Porting library to different programming language (dnsruby vs. Net::Dns)
In message 3221680d0909110203y79363f89yae016217e9966...@mail.gmail.com, =?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= ond...@sury.org writes [resent] Hi debian-legal, I have a interesting situation here (and AlexD which is in Cc: ) may add more. Alex (who works for Nominet) wrote dnsruby - a port of perl Net::DNS library to ruby. Original Net::DNS is licensed under perl license (which is GPLv1+ or Artistic). dnsruby follows the interface of Net::DNS and f.e. demo/ subdirectory contains rewritten examples which retains mention of original authors of perl code. Now Nominet UK want's this code to be licensed under Apache 2.0 license. The question is If the Nominet is able to do that. They have asked Olaf Kolkman and Michael Fuhr, who're active maintainers of Net:DNS, and they both agree, but there is some code written by Chris Reinhardt, who is not reachable at his last known email. Question is - to what extent is a port a complete rewrite and to what extent is it a derivative work. If it doesn't contain any of the original perl code, and the similarities are dictated by the need for compatibility, then the chances are the port contains no copyrights belonging to Net:DNS, and Nominet can do what they like. Alex can perhaps add more. Please keep me and Alex in Cc:, thanks. Ondrej P.S.: I would very much like to know the answer in general way - I'm thinking about doing similar thing - rewriting some library to python with retaining as much interface as possible from original perl library. A port will strip a large amount of copyright. Think of a translation of, eg, Harry Potter. The French copyright belongs the frenchman who translated it. The copyright in the story itself still belongs to JKR. If you're doing a port the story may well be dictated to you by the need to be compatible, in which case all the original copyright has been lost, and the port is totally yours. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: MusicXML 2.0?
In message 20090628182025.gf14...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes Hello, I would like to package a software which includes some dtd modules licensed under the MusicXML 2.0 license [1]. It looks like a free license, but something catched my attention: `No one other than Recordare LLC has the right to modify this Agreement.' which I understand as not allowing re-licensing. Err, no. The GPL does exactly the same thing, except not explicitly. As I understand it, Recordare are saying these are the terms we are making this stuff available to you on, and only we can change those terms. If I make stuff available to you under the GPL, then no-one other than me has the right to change those terms (ie, in Recordare's words, modify this agreement). Oh - and the GPL does NOT allow re-licensing, either! What it allows you to do (and what this licence probably does - I haven't analysed it) is to add code under a compatible licence. You haven't changed the licence on the existing code, so the derived work is only distributable on those terms which intersect the two licences. What the GPL demands here is that the GPL always be a subset of the intersect, so that anybody can safely assume the GPL applies to the whole work. The thing is: these dtd modules are referenced to by a GPL dtd (which also references an MPL 1.1 dtd), like this: !ENTITY % laDtdMusique SYSTEM partwise.dtd !ENTITY % laDtdXHTML SYSTEM xhtml11.dtd The dtd is eventually used by a GPL/LGPL java application. My concern is whether the GPL has to propagate down to the MusicXML 2.0 dtd being used, as that would require re-licensing. What do people think about it? These references are executed by the user, so actually I would say that the GPL is irrelevant here - the GPL does not place any restrictions on the end user, and the files being distributed, while they *reference* other GPL files, they do not *contain* GPL code therefore they are mere aggregation as far as the GPL and copyright law goes. Oh - and as I said - the GPL does *not* *permit* re-licensing, so this entire argument has to be flawed, anyway. Samuel [1]: http://www.recordare.com/dtds/license.html I think you need a little deeper understanding of the GPL. Read, learn and inwardly digest the part where it says when you pass on a copy that you have received, the recipient receives a licence from the original copyright holder (yes I know that's not an exact quote). That - *intentionally* - cuts the distributor out of the loop as far as copyright law is concerned. So if you modify a GPL program and then pass it on, any licences, restrictions, whatever that you apply, are ONLY relevant in so far as they apply to stuff for which *you* hold the copyright. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: InaTux's Author's Choice of Terminology License
In message 170691.3044...@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com, oohay moc. loopy_b...@yahoo.com writes Did you read the license? The majority of the software in Debian is licensed under the GPL, that is why Debian is referred to as licensed under the GNU GPL. I would think the license would be applied to the act of final distribution of Debian, to the source LiveCD, or other ways. So that when one receives the operating system they have to follow the same terminology in modifications. WRONG. Sorry. But the ONLY person(people) who can apply or change a licence are the people who own the copyrights. For the MOST part, those people are NOT Debian people. Yes, Debian can apply a licence to the LiveCD, because they've done the work of making it. But that licence will NOT apply to the contents of the disk, because Debian don't own the copyright to the stuff they put on the disk. The license aims to ensure the that operating systems be called GNU/Linux in any derivative works, like Ubuntu. It also aims to ensure that any software licensed under it has to be call Free Software. But, one could use the license to ensure that the OS be call Linux and the software be called Open Source. That is my paraphrased summary of the ACT License. I didn't write the license so I don't fully understand myself. The only information I have is the link to the license at inatux.com that I already posted. It appears you also don't understand copyright (don't worry, you're in very good company :-) I haven't read the InaTux licence, so I can't comment on whether it's a good or bad licence - it sounds a nice one in some respects, but it also sounds like it should be a trademark licence, not a copyright one. But it's not applicable here because the people you're asking to apply the licence AREN'T the authors, and don't have the legal right to apply the licence. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
In message 1243789213.18376.224.ca...@tomoyo, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit : I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: No one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a program name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: The Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. I've read Dmitrjs response, and it seems to me this should be covered by a trademark licence. Explicitly split the copyright and trademark grants, and you'll probably be fine. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
In message 4a253aae.4040...@debian.org, Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090530071729.gh30...@matthew.ath.cx, Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? Copyright (at least in some important jurisdiction) applies for life + 70 years, so it still applies and would now be held by the author's estate. Copyright in pretty much ALL jurisdictions (ie not including, iirc, places like North Korea) lasts for a *minimum* of 50 calendar years after creation. *minimum* ? Not really. Copyrights disappear when there are no copyright holders (failed bankrupts procedure and lack of heirs, when public entities doesn't take the assets). On some countries (like UK, IIRC) there are also orphaned works. Mmmm ... Then why are so many works disintegrating (I'm thinking of films) because no one knows who the copyright holder is, and no one dares copy them? And I don't know about other countries, but (a) I've never heard of orphaned works in the UK, and (b) certainly in the case of lack of heirs, the state takes everything. I don't know what happens for failed bankrupts, but I guess there is some sort of residual or worthless assets rules. And basically, Berne says copyright is a minimum of 50 years, and Berne applies in pretty much all jurisdictions. So if you don't know who the copyright holder is, you're stuffed. Anyway these cases doesn't make it GPL compatible. Of course ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
In message 20090530071729.gh30...@matthew.ath.cx, Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? Copyright (at least in some important jurisdiction) applies for life + 70 years, so it still applies and would now be held by the author's estate. Copyright in pretty much ALL jurisdictions (ie not including, iirc, places like North Korea) lasts for a *minimum* of 50 calendar years after creation. You can't state the worst case and then assume it applies without knowing anything about the author :-) You can state the probable best case, and then assume it probably applies... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL
In message pine.lnx.4.44.0904171144360.27732-100...@violet.rahul.net, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net writes On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also illegal if you just distribute the other program and have the user do the link. HOW? I hope the FSF doesn't think this, because imho it is so sloppy legal thinking as to be incompetent! http://sources.redhat.com/ml/guile/1999-02/msg00151.html This talks about static or dynamic linking. I don't actually see how it applies, because if it's statically linked it's a clear violation - the person distributing the program has to distribute the library as well. But if it's dynamically linked and the program - as distributed - merely EXPECTS to find the library on the target machine, I don't see any violation. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html I don't understand this. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs Also http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript : Eben Moglen: As when, for example, people tried to draw a line between static linking and dynamic linking under GPL version two, and we had to keep telling people that whatever the boundary of the work is under copyright law, it doesn't depend upon whether resolution occurs at link time or run time. Ummm... This whole thing is a rather grey area, but I still stick by what I said. You may have noticed references to the system library exception. Is that there as a valid exception, or because they're not sure whether it'll stick in court? At the end of the day, if the proprietary program does not contain any GPL code *as* *shipped*, I find it hard to see a copyright violation suit sticking. Who is violating the GPL? The FSF would like to say it's the proprietary vendor but ... (and it's certainly not the user, the GPL explicitly says they're in the clear). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL
In message pine.lnx.4.44.0904170825550.19077-100...@violet.rahul.net, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net writes On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, MJ Ray wrote: http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK. I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also illegal if you just distribute the other program and have the user do the link. HOW? I hope the FSF doesn't think this, because imho it is so sloppy legal thinking as to be incompetent! This is the same situation, and therefore would be a GPL violation. (And I was also under the impression that Debian follows the wishes of the copyright holder, so it doesn't matter if this argument has any legal merit, just that the FSF makes it.) Just to explain why the FSF *must* be wrong, ask yourself who *needs* the GPL in the situation you describe. The distributor isn't distributing GPL'd software, so he doesn't need it. The user doesn't need the GPL in order to *use* the GPL'd software - that is EXplicit in the GPL. So where's the violation? Who is copying/distributing/using GPL software in violation of the GPL? Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Zimbra and Yahoo Public License
In message 17890740.4861239900788731.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com, Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes I raised this in the past as we use Zimbra internally. The main objection at that time was choice of venue, which has been discussed at length. I continue to hold the view that establishing the legal venue gives clarity to the contractual structure of the agreement in a positive way. Its better to have the contract explicitly define which legal operating system it is designed to execute in. Otherwise, the language of the contract may be interpreted in a way radically different than the intent with which it was framed. My opinion is currently not the popular one. It just makes rational sense in my mind. So, let's say you're a Cuban (or a Russian?) The venue is California. If you're a Cuban, do you think you're going to be able to get a visa to go to court? Or Russian (an ordinary Russian, that is), how are you going to get the money to go to California? Choice of VENUE isn't free, as it denies recourse to law to many. Oh - and the (new-ish) American habit of denying entry (or at least making it very difficult) for anybody with a criminal conviction no matter how long ago is a problem there too - I think the stats say about 30% of young adult brits now have a criminal record :-( Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
In message 20090410081139.gb27...@thorin, Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:27:19PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: License and copyright are one and the same. GPL license relies on copyright law, just like almost any other open source license there is, be it BSD, Artistic or LGPL. Without copyright, the license is meaningless. Without license, you have no right to the source code. Thanks for the explanation; but I think what you mean is they're dependant on each other. This doesn't imply they're the same thing though. I think we all agree the Copyright lines, whenever they were present, need to be preserved. The license bits in general too, but what happens when the license terms explicitly give you permission to relicense? I gave this example in another mail (sorry if I sound redundant); my understanding is that in 2 or later terms in a GPLv2+ header the license version can be updated by recipients of the code, and that keeping the old license blob around is not a must; is this correct? Does section 12 of LGPL 2.1 work the same way? If not, where's the difference? I think you're wrong here! The GPL does NOT give you the right to change the terms on which the original author granted use of the code! What it does give you (if the author uses the or later wording) is the right to use a later licence to cover what YOU do. Let us say that I licence something under Version 2 or later. I have NOT given you the right to relicence my code! What you *can* do is say I prefer the terms of version 3, the licence grant gives me the right to claim version 3 as my permission to use this code, therefore I will modify/distribute/etc under version 3. It DOES NOT allow you to take away my grant of version 2. If you then distribute modified code and say modifications are v3 only the resulting file becomes distributable under v3 only. It still hasn't taken away my grant of version 2 to my code. THAT is why it is downright offensive to change the licence on minor modifications to someone else's file. Your 5% modification is taking away rights that the author of the other 95% granted. You just DON'T DO THAT in the Free Software world. So I repeat, minor fixes should never change the licence. If the changes are large enough to warrant a licence change, they should be in a separate file. And be careful - check your licences. Do they give you the right to *change* the licence on *someone* *elses* *code*. The GPL DOESN'T. The legal result may not matter when mixing licences. But the Free Software world places the SPIRIT of the grant much higher than the letter (okay, the letter has to be correct, but in the Free Software world, abusing the spirit makes enemies!). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
In message 20090410141624.gb28...@thorin, Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes I reply to this separately, because it's quite off-topic and unrelated to the problem at hand. I don't want to add noise to the wnpp log. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:37:22AM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: THAT is why it is downright offensive to change the licence on minor modifications to someone else's file. It is not. The author chose a license that explicitly allows this, in section 12, because they didn't want to prevent the license from being upgraded by third parties. This is precisely what is happening. Just because the author allows it, doesn't mean it isn't offensive. Your small change is taking a lot of rights away from other people. It may be legal and permitted, but isn't it one of the principles of Free Software that downstream can't take away rights granted by upstream? Yet that's exactly what this does! If you do a major rewrite and just re-use part of the old code, then fair enough. But if your changes are minimal then you are preventing your recipients from exercising their rights wrt the *majority* of the code (at least, not without considerable wasted effort stripping out your changes). That's not on. The legal result may not matter when mixing licences. But the Free Software world places the SPIRIT of the grant much higher than the letter The spirit of LGPL (or GPL for that matter) never intended to allow use of patents as a means to impose a tax on software covered by the license, and Novell is doing exactly that. Looks like fair play to me. That's what I meant about breaking the Spirit makes enemies! Novell are seen as not playing fair, and if we play the same tricks back on Novell then as you say, fair's fair. But just because we're playing tit for tat with Novell, doesn't justify us pulling the same trick on other people just because we can. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
In message 874owy8qth@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk writes: Basically he should put there (c) Hubert and licence GPLv3+. Small nit (and all in my layman's understanding): Copyright notices, when they were required at all (most recently in the UCC), were never valid with “(c) Person Name”. That is, “(c)” doesn't mean “copyright”: Only “Copyright”, the abbreviation “Copr.”, or the copyright symbol “©” are any use as a way of legally indicating a copyright notice. I was really meaning that the author SHOULD claim copyright... These days the UCC is essentially obsoleted by the Berne convention and copyright obtains with or without a valid notice; but if we request such notices, we should at least make them legally-meaningful. legally-meaningful or not, if there's no claim of copyright by the owner, then it's a bugger if you want to use your Free Software rights - it makes it hard for you to exercise them because you can't be sure what they are! -- \ “One of the most important things you learn from the internet | `\ is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It's just an awful lot of | _o__)‘us’.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
In message 20090408194833.ga5...@thorin, Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes and a clear violation of Tomboy's license. Notice license and copyright statements are two separate issues. AFAIK LGPL doesn't explicitly require that a license notice is preserved mixing code with other licenses like the BSD license does, but I could be mistaken. Any advice on this from -legal? If it's not your code, and the licence does not give you explicit permission, then you can't change the licence and shouldn't remove the licence note. Note that the GPLs fall in this category! The way you change the licence with this sort of code is by licencing your code with a compatible licence. The licence for the resulting combined work is the Venn Intersect of the two licences. If there's no intersect, then you can't distribute. For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD, the second uses LGPL 2.1 or later and the third uses GPL 3 then the Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to the work as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to strip out parts of the work, and use whatever licence the author granted. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
In message 20090408212528.ga19...@thorin, Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes [ Adding Hubert Figuiere (gnote upstream) to CC, note that he's probably not subscribed ] Hi Anthony, On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 09:20:44PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090408194833.ga5...@thorin, Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes and a clear violation of Tomboy's license. Notice license and copyright statements are two separate issues. AFAIK LGPL doesn't explicitly require that a license notice is preserved mixing code with other licenses like the BSD license does, but I could be mistaken. Any advice on this from -legal? If it's not your code, and the licence does not give you explicit permission, then you can't change the licence and shouldn't remove the licence note. Note that the GPLs fall in this category! The way you change the licence with this sort of code is by licencing your code with a compatible licence. The licence for the resulting combined work is the Venn Intersect of the two licences. If there's no intersect, then you can't distribute. Does this apply on a per-file basis? It seems we have three different situations: Depends how you define a work. I'd say (based on your stuff below) then if the only reason for modifying a file is to modify the copyright status, then you shouldn't be modifying it. a- old file has no copyright/license statement, and a new copyright/license statement (for Hubert / GPLv3+) was added. b- old file has a copyright/license statement, which is left verbatim since the file wasn't modified (or only minimally). c- old file has a copyright/license statement, the new file adds its own GPLv3+ header and BOTH copyright lines (but not the LGPLv2.1 header). Is any of these at fault? You're saying that C is incorrect because it should include both license headers (and not just both copyright lines)? If the new file is all Hubert's work, then he can put whatever copyright and licence lines he likes in there. Basically he should put there (c) Hubert and licence GPLv3+. If it's a NEW file, why should he put anything else there? Or are you mixing it with A, which is a mix of old and new? Is A also at fault because it should say explicitly that the copyright only covers Hubert's changes (even if noone else bothered to assert their copyrights)? If it doesn't make clear that Hubert's copyright and licence only apply to his changes, yes. In fact, I would say that it's a major breach of etiquette to change the licence - if Hubert knew the original licence was NOT GPLv3+, he should use the original licence for his mods, not GPL it. But note my use of *should*, not *must*. For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD, the second uses LGPL 2.1 or later and the third uses GPL 3 then the Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to the work as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to strip out parts of the work, and use whatever licence the author granted. Yeah, I understand the combined result is GPLv3; the only doubt I have is whether it's necessary to explicitly mention each license. In the project copying file, you should say that the combined work is GPLv3, and mention that components may have different, compatible, licences. If it's not, is there anything else we should take care of? Each author *should*, as a matter of *courtesy*, explicitly mention the licence in all of their files, and *should* *not* use a different licence when modifying a different author's original files. Thanks Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
In message 49d496cc.yviehl9rqvhommxs%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes So where did the above PDF and PS are programming languages argument come from? References, please! No references, sorry, but I certainly got the impression from the books I had years ago (PostScript reference manuals) that PostScript was meant as a programming language. iirc it's an rpn notation that is actually very similar to Forth, which definitely is a programming language. It's merely a strange, domain-specific language the purpose of which is to describe and lay out a page of paper, but presumably no different from (if I've got the right language) VHDL which is used to lay out a printed circuit board. And both of them are in some cases written in directly by their practitioners, and in other cases are generated by program generators. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- 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 or later
In message 20090329090239.gw7...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't have to redistribute it (or any work based on it) under all of those licenses. That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. In which case, you are NOT distributing the ORIGINAL work, but a derived work, because you've changed it. If it's an unchanged work, legally, you are using the 1.2 licence to distribute it, but you cannot change the licence the copyright holder originally granted. Note the wording in the GPL - the recipient gets a licence from the ORIGINAL licensor - if they gave 1.1 or later then that's what the recipient gets, regardless of whether you distributed under 1.1 or 1.2. The ONLY way you can actually *change* the licence is if you add code that is, let's say, 1.2 only. At which point the combined work becomes 1.2. A choice of licence only gives YOU the right to choose which licence applies to YOU. It does not give you the right to change the licences the recipient can choose from (unless, as I said, you create a derived work, in which case the recipient has to choose a licence that is compatible with your licence for the stuff for which you hold the copyright, and the other stuff you don't hold the copyright for). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
In message 20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes - only that they output the same documentation. I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to hard to change to call it free. Would you call a Word document a good enough source? After all, it requires a proprietary program to process it properly! :-) imho, the difference between plain text and a plain pdf is minimal. If, however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- 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 or later
In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? Stay with 1.1 or later. Basically, unless YOU have the right to RElicence, you can't change the licence. And I doubt you have that right. The licensor has given you the right to use it under a later licence. But unless they gave you the right to CHANGE the licence (which I doubt) then you don't have the right to take 1.1 away. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
In message 49c9a819.rvf2v61xchuvg7vu%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote: MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional permissions. Where is that requirement? To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The additional permissions make part of the license. Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive? Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at http://web.archive.org/web/2301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just a clarification? The FSF may be unusual in saying you can remove extra permissions. Normally you can't relicence someone else's code. But if you licence your added code WITHOUT the extra permissions, then you have effectively removed those permissions from the entire work. To get those permissions back, a recipient would have to strip your code from the work. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
In message 20090324232043.2789e...@pcolivier.chezmoi.net, Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com writes Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Correct - you can't change the permissions on the work THAT WAS LICENCED TO YOU unless you are given permission (which is *very* *rarely* done) If the FLTK demands that you use the FLTK for your own work, then that is unusual, and certainly demanding far more than the GPL (see below). Moreover the LGPL sates: [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you ] This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative works. I'm not at all sure it does. Think about mixing LGPL and GPL code. The resulting work has (effectively) had its LGPL rights stripped. But there's nothing preventing the recipient separating the GPL and LGPL parts and using each according to its licence. If, however, the FLTK does explicity require you to give the extra permissions, then it is GPL (and LGPL?) incompatible. Look at this way. The GPL *DOES* *NOT* *EVER* make you licence your code under the GPL, even if you mix it with someone else's GPL code and distribute it. What it does is require you to licence your code under a GPL-compatible licence, which guarantees to the recipient that they can *safely* treat the entire work *AS* *IF* it were GPL-licenced. What is the FLTK trying to achieve? The guarantee provided by the GPL is that, as a recipient, you do not need to care what the licence is on the individual bits. If ANY of it is GPL, you can safely behave *as* *if* *all* of it is GPL, even if it isn't. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: W3C Excerpt and Citation license
that link to this license will at all times remain with W3C and the copyright holders. -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DRM legal advice
In message 49aed85f.5nvvciqyno+9xuyd%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: In message 49ae6b15.fqybgcvyp1ig7h3c%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes [...] Do the copyright terms of things on iplayer actually have expiry dates, or is that something merely enforced by technical measures on some of the download methods? If I've got it right, the play on demand files are deleted (or at least made inaccessible) on the server after 7 days. The downloaded files cannot be played after 30 days, so I would *hope* iPlayer deletes them rather than leaving them around ... Where did 7 and 30 days come from? The terms I just found at http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/termscon say 5. In order to meet the BBC's obligations to rights holders, the BBC will embed downloadable BBC with digital rights management security. The expiry date for the BBC Content that you download will vary according to the agreements BBC has with rights holders of that content. BBC Content will be automatically deleted from your computer once its expiry date has been reached. Unless it's changed ... iirc content was available on the bbc web site for 7 days after it was transmitted, and if downloaded to your pc would remain playable for 30 days after it was transmitted. From what you say, it sounds like it may have changed... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DRM legal advice
In message 20090304093237.ga17...@lupin.powdarrmonkey.net, Jonathan Wiltshire deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk writes get_iplayer (renamed to get-iplayer for Debian naming restrictions) avoids this by fetching programmes through the iPhone channel in reasonable quality and saving them to disk. However, this also evades the DRM protection so the user is free to keep the files for as long as (s)he likes, which obviously isn't what the BBC wishes. Upstreams documentation does encourage users to respect the restrictions that would be in place and remove files after they should have expired, but there is no technical mechanism for doing so. Can you advise what the Debian position on this is? Please keep me in CC. Not the Debian position, but more the general Free Software attitude of respect other peoples' copyrights ... get-iplayer should implement a technical system whereby it downloads the expiry dates, and auto-deletes the files if the expiry date has passed. If you don't have access to the expiry dates, then default to the 7/30 day limit from the date of download. Okay, any experienced user can trivially by-pass that mechanism, but it takes a conscious effort. At the end of the day, you should respect other peoples wishes with regard to their stuff. If other people choose not to, that's their lookout. Look at the way (I think) official Ghostscript respects Adobe's copy-protection bits. Again, it's trivial to bypass but by default the software respects the copyright holder's wishes. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DRM legal advice
In message 49ae6b15.fqybgcvyp1ig7h3c%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Not the Debian position, but more the general Free Software attitude of respect other peoples' copyrights ... get-iplayer should implement a technical system whereby it downloads the expiry dates, and auto-deletes the files if the expiry date has passed. [...] This puzzled me in three ways: Do the copyright terms of things on iplayer actually have expiry dates, or is that something merely enforced by technical measures on some of the download methods? If I've got it right, the play on demand files are deleted (or at least made inaccessible) on the server after 7 days. The downloaded files cannot be played after 30 days, so I would *hope* iPlayer deletes them rather than leaving them around ... Aren't we allowed reasonable timeshifting for limited purposes? (Why should get-iplayer be treated differently to recording the same things off of VirginMedia's on-demand service?) Define reasonable. How long is a piece of string? Wouldn't the above data loss be a grave bug in the sense of http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities ? Refusing to play would be better, although get-iplayer doesn't necessarily do the playback, so I'm not sure that's feasible. If get-iplayer doesn't do any playback, then I'm not sure there's any way to enforce the restrictions. But if get-iplayer is meant to emulate iplayer, then I wouldn't call emulating its delete out-of-date files a bug - a feature maybe, but I still think respecting other peoples' copyrights and conditions by default is the correct way to go ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
In message 498d8af3.7030...@piglets.com, Colin Turner c...@piglets.com writes Hi All, I hope you can help and advise on this issue. I am packaging a web application for Debian, I am also the principal upstream author. The code is generally GPL v2 PHP. Over the years the project inherited, from a side project, a small fragment of Javascript that has no explicit license. The problem I have is that the code is, like so much JS, sitting available, apparently for general consumption on several websites. I have been unable to acquire a license from any of the authors (no reply to emails) and the code is so astonishingly trivial it's hard to see how it could possibly be re-implemented without it being the same code with different variable names. This is your clue. Any guidance on what I should do? The functionality the code provides (counting and capping characters in textareas) is quite useful and losing it would probably cause dataloss in use of the application. If this is true, the code has no copyright therefore there is no problem. I'm not sure how you'd document it, but just put a reference to them that says assumes these snippets cannot be copyrighted because they are too trivial. replace if required. I'm not sure how the Debian ftp-masters will take that, but if there really is no other way of re-implementing it, then it truly is unprotectable. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 200901201403.48978.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote: No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so again. That's a shame. It's a very lovely country, with lots to see and do. I don't think I've ever been to a country that I could categorically state I would never wish to return. I hesitate to wonder what horrible thing we must have done to earn such hate from you. I hope some day you reconsider and come visit us in all of our many triumphs and failures. You haven't earned any hate. I said I have no desire to set foot on American soil. Why should I want to go there? I'm a European, with a strong socialist streak, and have a far more eastern outlook on life. I have no hate for America (and have family who are naturalised/by birth American), it just has no appeal for me. Given the choice, I'd go east to Central/Eastern Europe, not west to America. That's called extra-territoriality, which is frowned upon in most civilised jurisdictions ... I honestly don't know what you are talking about here... I do know that Germany, for example, has a universal jurisdiction statute for human rights violations, allowing them to bring suit against anyone, anywhere, for violation of that statute. Of course, you've got a problem with enforcement, but you are still certainly breaking the German law if you commit human rights violations beyond their territory. Is Germany not a civilized jurisdiction? Ummm ... I thought the UK was unusual, in that we have only very recently made sex crimes a prosecutable offence in British courts against British nationals, regardless of where the act actually took place. But even there, British sovereignty is only claimed over British nationals. Germany is civilised. But I don't think they're enforcing NATIONAL law (at least, not the way you think). Human Rights is an INTERNATIONAL issue, covered by INTERNATIONAL treaties, and they have simply given their courts the right to enforce INTERNATIONAL law. Certainly from my point of view, living in another (allegedly) civilised society, if I fell foul of the German law, I would have broken British law as well, and the British courts would probably claim jurisdiction too. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as irrelevant... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Nope, in the federal system a state can enforce the laws of another state if it so chooses. It's not required to, and in practice, most folks would remove the case to federal jurisdiction. But with federal removal, you've got a Federal Court, applying a state law, against a resident of a different state. Happens all the time. So you're saying that, even if you have NO CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER with Utah, you can be forced to follow Utah state law (of which, not having any contact with Utah, you cannot be expected to know)? That's absurd! (Certainly to my mind!) Mind you, if that's the case, maybe that's why Americans think American law can be enforced outside their own borders, if State law can be enforced outside of a state's borders. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our
Re: Which license am I looking for?
some power over the New York author? This is a BEAUTIFUL example! This basic premise has actually happened, iirc. And it has been decided, by the highest court in the land, that the only recourse to law in Britain is to confiscate any and every copy of the book that may end up under British jurisdiction. No action can be taken against the publisher (they're American), and no action can be taken against the author unless they're a British national (which in your example, they're not). Anybody importing the book commercially will be liable for damages for defamation. Any copies uncovered in transit may (probably will) be seized at the border or in the shop. Any copies that travellers have as personal reading matter will probably be ignored, but could be seized. Once a court decides that it has personal jurisdiction and can hear this case against this defendant, the court must determine what rules should apply. This is governed by the doctrines of choice of law (or sometimes called conflicts of law). If the German manufacturer did everything right under German law, but New York law would require something more, which standard should be used by the New York court? Or, in a different type of case, if Microsoft is entitled under United States law to incorporate a browser into its operating system, is the EU required to follow that rule because the operating system and browser are (hypothetically) created in the United States? In the libel example, should the UK court apply its own strict rules or the much more liberal standard of United States libel law to the New York author? If a French citizen asks a United States court to find that a United States citizen violated a French copyright in France, should French law apply both to whether a violation occurred and to the amount of damages? Conflict of law ... that book example was superb seeing as it is only too possible - even probable - for books to exist that are perfectly legal in America, but not in England. A UK court would apply English law, and ban import of the book. Otherwise any judgement would be a farce. In the German (and MS) examples, I would say you can't apply product law if the product was not intended for sale in the jurisdiction. But anybody importing a product is liable for making sure it complies with local legislation. My example would be (legal) drugs. In the UK we have over the counter and prescription drugs. If I buy prescription drugs from, let's say, Holland where these drugs are over the counter, the pharmacist/dealer/whatever is committing *no* offence by selling them to me. But as soon as I return home (if I bought them personally) or they are delivered to me (if I bought them by mail order), I am committing the offence of possession of prescription drugs without a prescription. I don't know of any example where English law could be prosecuted against a foreign national who is abroad, unless that national has agreed to British jurisdiction. I do know our government has signed a treaty that allows foreign governments to extradite British citizens, for actions that are legal in Britain! to face trial in foreign (namely American :-( courts. But I think that's why I'm so dismissive of all this IANAL because it's illegal to give legal advice in America stuff. My government recognises the insanity of trying to enforce its laws against foreign citizens, and I think it insane of the Americans to try and enforce their laws against me. At the end of the day, what I do, I do it IN ENGLAND, and in England IT IS LEGAL. And in the absence of a contract, no British court will apply foreign law. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 200901191340.03678.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) I am... is this a problem? No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so again. Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). I'm not entirely certain why the fact that the list is international means anything? The individuals who participate live *somewhere* and the laws of those somewheres apply. Everyone who participates on this list subjects themselves, in part, to the laws of those they reply to. Yes, there are jurisdictional issues, but that's different from the law itself. That's called extra-territoriality, which is frowned upon in most civilised jurisdictions ... No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as irrelevant... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Mind you, if that's the case, maybe that's why Americans think American law can be enforced outside their own borders, if State law can be enforced outside of a state's borders. Not entirely certain what an Italian court would make of the claim of violating U.S. laws on the subject. He might get of free; I don't think it would be pretty. But, by all means, stick your head in the ground and complain about American parochialism, it's realy no skin off my knees. Incedently, as far as I can tell, the UK doesn't have the same sort of blanked practice requirement as the United States does, but it does have some areas of law that require you to certified as one of four different types of legal professionals. I didn't bother to look it up, because I don't honestly care -- whatever it is, it's going to be less strict than the rules I must follow -- but perhaps you might want to look it up, since you are so certain my suggestion about legal advice does not apply to you. As far as I am aware, UK rules basically forbid TRADING as a professional if you are not professionally qualified. To give a simple example, I can instruct anybody how to drive - in the UK we have something called a provisional driving licence which allows people to drive with various restrictions on what they're allowed to do. What I CANNOT do is charge someone for teaching them, unless I'm qualified to do so. With the exception of medicine, I think that's true for pretty much ALL the regulated professions. Actually - the requirements for practising law are less strict than that! My mother is a qualified Secretary (that's not a typist - it's a qualification that allows her
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
In message 20090119110756.ga18...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes * Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090119 01:58]: Having said all that, the meaning of this paragraph -- to me, at least -- is straight forward. It says that the U.S. Government, having decided to deny itself a copyright in the U.S., does not preclude itself from accepting a copyright from a different jurisdiction. If the Canadians wish to grant U.S. Governments works a copyright, then § 105 doesn't stop that. Nor does it stop the U.S. Government from enforcing such a copyright once it is issued. What it *doesn't* say is that a foreign government is required to grant a copyright. It's up to them... if they do, then the U.S. will take it... if they don't, not a big deal. So I think that alone is like having one country where copyright ends say 5 years after the death of the author. If we have some software from an author in this country that dies 6 years ago, it will be public domain there, but if I am not mistaken it will not be public domain in the rest of the world. That's what I understood. I thought it was equality of treatment, not reciprocity. Corporate works in the US have (I believe) a lifetime of 95 years. In Europe it's 50 or 70 (probably 70). So, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, it is quite possible for a US work to be copyright in the US but public domain in Europe, if it's between 70 and 95 years old. Equality says if a European company could sue in Europe, then an American company must be able to also. If the European company can't sue, then neither can an American company in like circumstances. Actually, that also means a European-created work can be copyright in the US after the European copyright has expired ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 20090118174305.620e0088@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. [...] Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license. I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses. I agree. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft license! So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to make the whole lot free? And I think RMS is a bit on my side - after all he did write the LGPL... E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL itself. The only exception is the case of mere aggregation: see the license text for more details. Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though. If I understand your desiderata correctly, yes, I think all versions of the GNU GPL are ruled out. Actually, iiuc, no they are not. It sounds like the LGPL 2 would satisfy your requirements. And while there is no LGPL 3 (and I don't think there will be), the GPL 3 has optional relaxation clauses, one of which makes it a replacement for the LGPL. Basically, the LGPL requires that any code that is *strongly* linked to yours is affected by your licence, but if the person using your code keeps it as a self-contained library, they can link that library into their code without their main code being affected - just any modifications to the library are affected. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: bash completion script licensing
In message 87iqomapdk@mid.deneb.enyo.de, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de writes * Anthony W. Youngman: The GPL requires more than just source code. In particular, further restrictions are not allowed. So having source code is not sufficient for compliance. Yes, but if I'm a DISTRIBUTOR, I don't have the power to change the licence, so if I receive source-code and pass it on, then the GPL is irrelevant, other than it gives me permission to copy what I have. Being a distributor does not exempt you from copyright violations. If all I do is copy it (for which the GPL gives me permission) and distribute the copies UNCHANGED, then I have not added further restrictions and I am not in breach of the GPL. This assumes that the copyright holder of the GPLed part gives you the work. You could construct implicit permission from that. But if someone else gives you the work. Most of the GPL enforcement to date has been against distributors. Please give me just ONE example of the GPL being enforced against people who were distributing SOURCE. Please note the subject of this thread is bash ... script ... - I thought bash scripts were simultaneously source and executable. Personally, I would be COMPLETELY happy, as author, distributor, OR end-user, to use GPL libraries with proprietary programs IF those proprietary programs were distributed AS SOURCE. I've actually used a couple of libraries like that (although they didn't link to GPL stuff - this was when Free Software was just beginning to take off). Reverse engineering tools for compiled code are nowadays good enough that they can compete, in terms of usability, with badly written source code. Combined with your argument, we should allow people to use GPLed code from their code, irrespective of their own licensing. This would be the end of copyleft. Let's say I write a program that uses loads of GPL software, and I licence it under a proprietary licence. If I distribute MY code, as source, and leave it to the user to do the compiling, linking etc, where is any copyright violation? Some people want it to be a copyright violation, to make copyleft stronger. I personally find it a difficult position to take if your end goal is abolition of all copyright. However, something similar is needed if you want the GPL have legal teeth (without making it a contract), and be more than just an elaborate statement of a preferred software distribution policy. While I think copyright may have over-reached itself, I'm not in favour of total abolition. I think the American social contract behind copyright is a very good idea. It's just that the law doesn't abide by the contract :-( But, as I said, in my scenario where is the copyright violation? How are you going to make it a violation? And actually, I think my scenario fufills THREE of the GPL's four freedoms. The only one it doesn't fulfil is to give *you* the right to share *my* code with other people. In other words, the only freedom you're not given is the freedom to ignore the american social contract. I'm fine with that! Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: bash completion script licensing
In message 871vvbv5st@mid.deneb.enyo.de, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de writes * Anthony W. Youngman: Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode? Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode? I meant bytecode - along the lines of basic is interpreted code, but sometimes it's pre-processed. Maybe I'm being dense, but in the case of something like a bash script, the distributor is distributing source therefore the licence of the interpreter is irrelevant. The GPL requires more than just source code. In particular, further restrictions are not allowed. So having source code is not sufficient for compliance. Yes, but if I'm a DISTRIBUTOR, I don't have the power to change the licence, so if I receive source-code and pass it on, then the GPL is irrelevant, other than it gives me permission to copy what I have. If all I do is copy it (for which the GPL gives me permission) and distribute the copies UNCHANGED, then I have not added further restrictions and I am not in breach of the GPL. So source code IS sufficient for compliance, if I am a DISTRIBUTOR who is just passing on copies. And when the script is run, it is the end-user doing the linking, so the GPL is irrelevant. The same argument applies to dynamic linking. Some people do not accept it because it is the end of the GPL for libraries (and of royalties for component software). Maybe. But life is shades of grey, not black-and-white. And imho, when applied rigidly (in *either* direction) that argument leads to idiocy. Personally, I would be COMPLETELY happy, as author, distributor, OR end-user, to use GPL libraries with proprietary programs IF those proprietary programs were distributed AS SOURCE. I've actually used a couple of libraries like that (although they didn't link to GPL stuff - this was when Free Software was just beginning to take off). Let's say I write a program that uses loads of GPL software, and I licence it under a proprietary licence. If I distribute MY code, as source, and leave it to the user to do the compiling, linking etc, where is any copyright violation? You can't do me, because I haven't distributed any GPL code (and the GPL lets me use it on MY computers). You can't do the user, for the same reasons. And you can't do the distributors, because they've never been near GPL code. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause
In message 20090108232546.5a3d9873@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes But anyway, there *has* to be a trademark to begin with, in order for trademark laws to apply. I don't know whether Alice is a trademark or is eligible to become one. I don't know about US law, but certainly in the UK, trademark law is a bit like copyright law - using a name automatically creates a trademark(TM). Note I wrote (TM), and *not* (R). I'm planning to have another go at writing a free Pick implementation when I can find the time, and right from the get-go I will be referring to it as MaVen (TM). That INSTANTLY gives me trademark rights. The difference between (TM) and (R) is that (R) means registered, and as such it's a lot easier to enforce (a bit like you need to register copyrights in the US if you want to get decent damages for infringement). But if I call my product MaVen (TM) it makes it a lot easier for me to defend myself in a trademark fight against someone just using Maven, and if I can show they named their product after mine, I would have pretty much the same redress as if I had actually registered the trademark. The main effect of not registering the trademark there simply makes the burden of proof on me somewhat higher. (Oh - and if you're thinking of the Windows(r)/Lindows fiasco, MS would have been able to sue Lindows for naming their product with intent to cause confusion with Windows even if they didn't have a registered trademark. They'd probably have lost on the grounds confusion was unlikely, but they'd've had a case.) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: bash completion script licensing
In message 87sknziao6@mid.deneb.enyo.de, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de writes * Matthew Johnson: On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote: As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not sure how sourced bash scripts are supposed to be considered in this context, I wonder if having such a CDDL bash script would be problematic license-wise. There would be no problem with a CDDL bash script per-se, any more than there would be with a CDDL jpeg or a GPL word document. I suppose you could argue that since it is modifying the behaviour of one of bash's built-in functions it counts under the (already dubious) GPL linkage clause, but I think it would be a stretch. The usual argument is that the program is a derived work of the programming environment; it's not based on linking per se. I don't know if this argument has been made for shell scripts (especially those containing bashisms). The FSF position is reflected in this statement: | If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does | that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under | GPL-compatible licenses? | | When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is | no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a | free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot | limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any | data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no | requirements about licensing that data to anyone. | | However, when the interpreter is extended to provide “bindings” | to other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the | interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it | uses through these bindings. So if these facilities are released | under the GPL, the interpreted program that uses them must be | released in a GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native Interface | is an example of such a binding mechanism; libraries that are | accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs | that call them. These libraries are also linked with the | interpreter. If the interpreter is linked statically with these | libraries, or if it is designed to link dynamically with these | specific libraries, then it too needs to be released in a | GPL-compatible way. | | Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with | the interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, | Perl comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes | with many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call | them are always dynamically linked together. | | A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or | Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a | GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or | Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run | on. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL (For particular interpreters, the copyright holder might argue that all non-trivial scripts are derived works of the interpret, so this is less permissive than it seems at first glance.) Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode? Maybe I'm being dense, but in the case of something like a bash script, the distributor is distributing source therefore the licence of the interpreter is irrelevant. And when the script is run, it is the end-user doing the linking, so the GPL is irrelevant. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Public Domain for Germans
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why have the free license as fallback? I advise you to simplify: Work *with* the fact that you've got copyright, and license the work accordingly. After all this seems to be the best, although I like the Idea to give up copyright. So do I. I encourage both of us to continue to agitate for a change in law in our nations and worldwide so that copyright is *not* the difficult-to-eradicate default. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just as Europe doesn't have the concept of fair use, the US doesn't have the concept of moral rights. I know some people would hate to be associated with software they'd written (I didn't want my name in credits for some software I wrote, but that was largely because, imho, I was severely hampered in doing the job properly by management dictat), but the point of moral rights is to prevent *you* from removing *my* name from *my* work. In other words, it is the (imho reasonable) European way of preventing you from falsely passing off my work as yours. Much as you might disagree with HOW they've done it, you can't reasonably object to WHY they've done it. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Wednesday 29 October 2008 06:45:19 pm Ben Finney wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:08:54 +0100 Carl Fürstenberg wrote: This license is a legal agreement between you and EllisLab Inc. for the use of CodeIgniter Software (the Software). By obtaining the Software you agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this license. I don't particularly love licenses that claim they must be agreed upon just to *obtain* the Software. Indeed. I don't know of any jurisdictions where these grasping clauses are enforcible; one can't be held to an “agreement” that one had no option to view or negotiate before the stated condition occurs. Sure they can. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, then you don't have the right to have a copy of the work. In fact, you didn't even have the right to make the copy in the first place. Now, I'm not claiming you can agree to something you haven't seen, but if you DO NOT agree, then you don't have the right to have it in the first place, and so at a minmum a rights's holder can enforce their right to deny you a copy. Francesco says he doesn't like licenses that require you to agree before you *obtain*... but one has to have permission to get the copy right from the get-go. Reductio ad absurdam ... In order to get a copy of the software you need to agree to the licence. In order to agree to the licence, you need to be able to read the licence. In order to read the licence you need to get a copy of the software. Repeat ad nauseam. In many/most jurisdictions, this is called a contract of adhesion, and is void ... as Ben said, you can't (in most circumstances) be held to an agreement where you were unable to provide informed consent (ESPECIALLY if the counter-party was responsible for that inability!). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use of Python bindings to GPL library from within non-GPL Python toolkit
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yaroslav Halchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Thank you Anthony for a detailed explanation, but I am still lacking a clear view here since you are talking about mixing-in GPL code within non-GPLed project, and in our case it is not quite the case: ATM all code in our project is non-GPLed, including some code which makes use of external GPL library through python bindings. So, technically speaking we are not mixing the code, and we do not redistribute GPL code within our project (that dependency on GPLed library is optional). But if I get it right -- it doesn't really matter, since GPL doesn't allow external non-GPLed software to use GPLed library (for such scenarios there is LGPL), am I right? If it's external non-GPL, you can't change its licence. So *YOU* *CAN* mix it with both GPL and your own software. But you CAN'T then DISTRIBUTE the result. The GPL says you must distribute the non-GPL code as if it were GPL, but you don't own that code and can't change the licence. So you can't comply with both licences at the same time, so you can't distribute. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use of Python bindings to GPL library from within non-GPL Python toolkit
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yaroslav Halchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi Guys, I am sorry that I am following up on this dead thread I started long ago [1], and which Francesco was kind to follow up to. Now I've got another project to package and got the same issue, and I am not clear if I have the right understanding of GPL-compatibility. AFAIK it means that you can use GPL-compatible licensed project within GPL-ed project, and not vise-versa! Am I correct? Yes. And actually if I am reading it right, wikipedia says the same: Many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, the BSD license (in its current 3-clause form), and the LGPL, are GPL-compatible. That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole). so -- combination has to be GPLed! Sort of yes ... If I am not right -- then Francesco is right and I can easily use GPLed project (and don't even ask for LGPL) from anything which is 'GPL-compatible'. That's not impossible ... but if I understand you aright, then the GPL is intended to hinder/prevent that. The GPL does not allow you to mix GPL'd code in non-gpl'd projects. The proper way to look at it is: If you distribute someone else's code you have to abide by their licence that they put on it. If that licence allows you to relicence the code then you can, otherwise you can't. Let's say you mix three code bases into one project, one is GPL, one is GPL-compatible, and one is your own code. Your own code, you can do what you like with - apply ANY licence to it. The GPL code, you cannot relicence it, so you have to distribute it under the GPL only. The GPL-compatible code can also be distributed under the GPL. But because you're distributing your code mixed with GPL code, the GPL demands that either you dual-licence your code as GPL, or you let the recipients of the code relicence. Otherwise you can't distribute the GPL code. Your recipients now can treat the entire project as if was GPL (that's the point of GPL-compatible). They can strip out your code and use it under whatever other licence you put it. And they can strip out the GPL-compatible code and use it under the GPL-compatible licence. The thing is, you CAN NOT (without the copyright holder's permission) relicence any third-party code. The GPL says you must pass on ALL the rights that the GPL grants to ALL the code to ALL the recipients. If you can't do that you can't distribute the GPL code. And if the 3rd-party licence didn't give you those rights to pass on, you can't mix that code with GPL code and pass it on because the two licences conflict - the GPL says you MUST pass on the rights, the 3rd-party licence says you CAN'T pass on the rights, and the only option left open to you is to NOT DISTRIBUTE. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes * Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080823 14:31]: What was proposed was that every single user of the software would be required to host, on their own server and at their own expense, or even over the same net access through which remote access to the software is provided, a copy of the source code for every piece of AGPLv3 licensed software they wanted to use. What I am continually having to re-iterate in this thread is that this only applies to those who are running modified copies of code which is not already available online, that a free VCS solution is suitable, and it you're only required to share the source code with people you've already opted to allow remote access to your modified version. So everything is fine until someone wants to modify the software. But if they do, you say they are no longer allowed to run it without fullfilling some restrictions. I fail to see how anyone can consider that free. A. You want the software to be BSD-Free. The AGPL is GNU-Free. There's a difference. GNUs don't like BSD because the software can become unFree. BSD-ers don't like GNU because the software can't become unFree. The whole point of the AGPL is keep software GNU-Free and close a loophole where the web allows public use of GPL software but allows a modifier to keep the modifications private. From what you've said, it sounds like you don't think the GPL is free, because modifying GPL software means you can't run it without fulfilling certain restrictions (namely you're not allowed to share just the binaries). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipient receives a usable copy. Paragraph 3 may be the first problem. It basically prevents cheap CD vendors from selling copies of Debian on an as is basis. Note that, in many jurisdictions, this is actually a legal requirement. For example, this clause would be meaningless in the UK because the vendor would be liable under SOGA (Sale Of Goods Act) anyway. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing of iso-codes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Tobias Toedter wrote: Would it be possible for non-free programs to use that data (XML files and translations) if iso-codes is licensed under GPL? Or would we need to use the LGPL for this? My first thought is what do you expect the GPL to do for you with this data set? I don't see how the license of a data file can affect the licensing status of a program that processes the data file. One can consider that the data file is a library and using the data is linking. I am unsure if this interpretation but I think it would be best to license either under the LGPL or under the GPL with an explicit exception. Even if it appears that this exception is not useful; it would at least have the merit to clarify the situation. Responding very late, but it sounds to me like this file is a collection of data. As such, it can't be copyrighted! I'd agree with Arnoud. The licence on the data file won't affect the program. But there's a good chance that the licence on the data file is invalid ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3 app with copied GPLv2 or later source and linked against LGPL-2 or later libraries
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes What you are doing is saying gpe-cash contains some code that is '2 or later' and some code that is '3 only' or '3 or later', therefore 3 is the only licence that is valid for gpe-cash. To re-iterate. You are NOT changing the pre-existing licence on code you've borrowed. But because of the mix of licences, the only licence that is valid for the combined work is v3. Perhaps a bit pedantic, but you are right. What he is doing is doesn't actually change the licences, but the result effectively has the licence of GPL v3 (or perhaps GPL v3 or Later). I know I'm being pedantic. But woolly thinking is behind most confusion of licencing, and if people actually UNDERSTOOD what is going on, we wouldn't have a lot of the licencing trouble we do ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL v3 compatibilty
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I have coded some programs which are explicit under GPL v2 since I do not like v3 (I have my reasons) but I am using a LIB which is currently under LGPL v2. Now the new version of this LIB is v3. What should I do? DON'T PANIC (as Douglas Adams said). If your GPLv2 program links to an LGPLv3 library, then you don't need to give a monkeys. The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your program is GPL (any version), then it is compatible with any LGPL library (any version). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL v3 compatibilty
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your program is GPL (any version), then it is compatible with any LGPL library (any version). I think you forgot to preface this with the disclaimers I am not a lawyer, I am not a DD, I don't speak for the FSF, I don't even bother to read the other analyses of GPLv2/LGPLv3 interaction that have been posted to this list, and this *is* legal advice that I have no business dispensing to people on a Debian mailing list. Given my experience of lawyers, I strongly suspect my not a lawyer knowledge of law is quite likely to be better than many of theirs' ... :-) Yes maybe I should have put disclaimers - I just tend to assume that people on mailing lists are ordinary people like me ... And I think Gervase has already corrected me :-) Mind you. I think, if you distribute AS SOURCE, GPL code is compatible with pretty much ANYTHING (I can't remember my analysis, but basically it was along the lines of anything else - even components required for successful compilation - are mere aggregation as far as the source goes :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3 app with copied GPLv2 or later source and linked against LGPL-2 or later libraries
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes All the gnucash source code used in gpe-cash is GPLv2 or later. The Gtk frontend for gpe-cash is GPLv3 or later. I am therefore using my option to distribute and modify the gnucash source code under a later version of the GPL, bringing the entire source code for gpe-cash under version 3 of the GPL. This specifically includes the shared library libqofcashobjects. Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are NOT bringing the entire source code for gpe-cash under version 3 of the GPL. If it was licenced 2 or later, it STAYS 2 or later. What you are doing is saying gpe-cash contains some code that is '2 or later' and some code that is '3 only' or '3 or later', therefore 3 is the only licence that is valid for gpe-cash. To re-iterate. You are NOT changing the pre-existing licence on code you've borrowed. But because of the mix of licences, the only licence that is valid for the combined work is v3. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked for that marketed it in America. And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the anticircumvention clause of the DMCA notwithstanding.] If he was charged with breaking US law on US soil, fair enough. The problem, as I see it, was that he was ... Charged with breaking US law, as a result of actions he did in Russia, in order to comply with Russian law. THAT is the lunacy (and American megalomania) of the Sklyarov debacle. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jagged Alliance 2 Source Code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Trying again anyway, since when I don't get answers from anywhere, I can't work on it freely, so I won't work on it at all and it perhaps won't ever get packaged for Debian. Vicious circle... Is this thing (or any license in general, if that could be more easily answered) somehow mixable with the GPL? Eg. that I publish my derived work under the GPL and make an exception for Strategy First to grant them what they want? Dual-licence it ... Think TrollTech and Qt - which is freely available under the GPL, but you can also licence it direct from TT and then do proprietary things with it. I haven't bothered to read the licence, but you could say my code is dual-licenced under the GPL, and under the Jagged Alliance licence. Then the Jagged Alliance people can do what they want to under the Jagged Alliance licence, and anybody who cares to can separate your code out (or download it from you if you keep it separate) and use it under the GPL. The only snag is, if the Jagged Alliance and GPL licences are incompatible, the package as a whole would only be distributable under the Jagged Alliance licence, and probably wouldn't qualify for distribution with Debian. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is I am afraid it cannot a definite answer? It does not even seem to express certainty... (I am not a professor of English) The usage of I am afraid that assertion in English has changed. Do you mean in English, or in American? At one point it expressed both uncertainty and anxiety about the assertion; I fear that this assertion might be true. Then it was used euphemistically to be polite about an assertion one *was* certain about, but felt was bad for the other party so wanted to soften the statement. Eventually this euphemistic usage became the main understanding. As an English speaker, that is still what it means to me. Most native English speakers, I think, would read the above as Though I regret the fact, I am certain that assertion. To express uncertainty, it might be clearer to say I fear that assertion or I think that assertion. You probably mean most native *American* speakers ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the right to rule the world? No, but the US government has the right to enforce its laws and other countries have the right to respond in kind. Germany, for example, has claimed universal jurisdiction for the purposes of human rights violations... of course, the U.S. would never turn over one of it's citizens to such a court. Are you sure your government will stand up for you if the U.S. comes calling? Is it worth the risk? Actually, I KNOW they won't :-( I don't give a monkeys about American criminal law, because I don't live there. And I have no desire to visit there. Well, that's all fine and good. However, if you were to pass yourself off as a lawyer and give legal advice to Americans from your home country, I would think it would only be a matter of time before Interpol would come looking for you with a one-way extradition ticket to the U.S. And what would you do about the Sklyarov affair? What he did was criminal under US law, I agree. But under Russian law (the law of his local jurisdiction) it was MANDATORY! Ah, but Sklyarov chose to do what he did from American soil, so not really a great example. For the record, I protested in front of the Seattle Adobe building when that all went down, so don't think I'm some sort of corporate suit wearing dude here. OOPPSS !!! You're WRONG here. Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked for that marketed it in America. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first discussed. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a good chance the clause would be declared legally invalid. I cannot understand how it could be retroactive. Since the GNU GPL v3 has been released on 29 June 2007, no work has been licensed under its terms prior to 29 June 2007, and hence no provision can be retroactive. A company which entered in a discriminatory agreement prior to 28 March 2007, will find out that now is not allowed to distribute GPLv3ed works. What's retroactive about this? It's probably to do with the v2 or later stuff. I can't remember, but it was discussed on Groklaw, and v3 *is* retroactive to the extent that a lot of stuff is licenced or later. Certainly the feeling is that MS will get caught by this date thingy as a result of their deal with Novell. If a company entered prior to 1989 into a weird agreement forbidding the distribution of source code, would we say that GPL sections that mandate availability of source are retroactive? In that case, they simply wouldn't be able to distribute GPL software, because they wouldn't be able to comply with the licence. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (The only non-native speakers who I won't cut slack are those who start preaching their interpretation of English as The One True Meaning over objections from Englishmen. ;-) ) I presume you mean Americans :-)) Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Anthony W. Youngman wrote: And as I see it, if I say My program is licenced under GPLv3 with the following exceptions ..., if the user ignores the exception, they have broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL doesn't apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause allowing them to remove the exception ... This seems to suggest that the terms that you wrote explicitly have some special trumping value over the terms in the text of the GPL itself. I don't think that's true. My terms are what I wrote in the COPYING file, not what RMS et al wrote in the GPL file. If you don't abide by the contents of COPYING, you don't have a licence from me... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes * Santiago Vila: + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation, + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity. I disagree with this. It should be ok to point to the latest version of the GPL if the program says Version X or later. Many programs do that, and we should not need to change them. But do we really want to license everything which is GPL version 2 or later under the GPL version 3? Actually, YOU CAN'T. The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the copyright. The recipient has the right to use code placed under a v2 or later licence AS IF it was under v3 - they do not have the right to re-licence it under v3. And how do we discriminate between GPL version 2 or later and GPL version 3 or later? I think you need to, though, because they ARE two DIFFERENT licencing criteria, and you do NOT have the right to change them. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Are you familiar enough with the laws of Italy (where Francesco appears to reside) to state that there are such laws which apply to him? Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to people on debian-legal as a whole. Given that unlicensed legal advice is a criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than his local laws. Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the right to rule the world? I don't give a monkeys about American criminal law, because I don't live there. And I have no desire to visit there. And what would you do about the Sklyarov affair? What he did was criminal under US law, I agree. But under Russian law (the law of his local jurisdiction) it was MANDATORY! You're basically claiming that if American law flatly contradicts the law of some other country, then people living in that country have to ignore their own law and abide by American law instead !!! Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I am not aware of any law in Finland regulating giving legal advice. There is, however, a (very recently instated) legal requirement for anybody representing someone else at trial to be legally trained. The title asianajaja (one of the Finnish terms referring to a lawyer) is also legally restricted to only members of the bar association. IANAL - so I can't be certain - but it would not surprise me in the slightest if the majority of British lawyers were NOT members of the relevant bar association. I think bar association members are called barristers - and most lawyers are not barristers but solicitors. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Um, no. You shouldn't have used GPLv3 doesn't have any legal force to resolve the inconsistency. If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license however I damn well want, regardless of what the GPLv3 itself says about whether that is permissible, because the GPLv3 is not binding on *me the copyright holder*. If I go to the effort of writing This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the prohibition in section 7 of the license on additional restrictions does not apply and the permission in section 13 is not granted. then I have *explicitly addressed* the clause in GPLv3 which purports to prohibit additional restrictions. Which statement is going to take precedence? At best I've created a lawyer bomb because my intentions are not clear; at worst I've succeeded in licensing my code in a manner that's incompatible with the GPLv3. But that's exactly the same problem that we had with GPLv2, so what was the point of adding this clause? And as I see it, if I say My program is licenced under GPLv3 with the following exceptions ..., if the user ignores the exception, they have broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL doesn't apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause allowing them to remove the exception ... At the end of the day, the intentions of the licensor are important, and if those intentions are made explicitly clear, it's a bit difficult for the GPL to contradict them. The main effect of this clause will probably be to discourage people from doing this sort of thing - I'm not at all sure that clause would actually have teeth in a court of law. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes A patent license is discriminatory if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007. This date is arbitrary. It limits the effectiveness of the protection against discriminatory patent licenses. This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first discussed. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a good chance the clause would be declared legally invalid. This clause fails to protect recipients from patent lawsuits, whenever the related discriminatory patent license was granted, or the related nasty arrangement was in place, prior to 28 March 2007. In those cases, the work fails several DFSG, if the patent licensed in a discriminatory manner is actively enforced and infringed by the work. It's not a Freeness issue, unless and until there are actively enforced patents infringed by the work and licensed in a discriminatory manner prior to 28 March 2007. It isn't meant to protect recipients. It's intended to stop distributors. If you are a party to a discriminatory agreement, YOU are liable to protect downstream, or YOU CAN'T DISTRIBUTE. THAT is the point of that clause - if you want to distribute, you have the responsibility to make sure downstream can distribute too. You can't negotiate protection for yourself (or your customers) and leave everybody else at risk. Patents are a risk factor for Americans. This clause just says you have to share the risk equally, if a distributor negotiates unequal protection then it's a violation of v3. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Computer with Debian preinstalled
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Bode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi, I'm planning to sell PCs with a preinstalled Debian system. This in itself should not be problematic, I guess. But do I have to handle sources? GPL section 3 requires me to either include all sources of the installed GPL binaries or give a written offer to ship the sources on CD/DVD/whatever media. Is that correct, or is it ok to say 'look, it's Debian on that machine, go to debian.org for the sources'? What are other people who sell PCs with preinstalled Debian doing? If you're selling PCs as a business, YOU CAN'T say go to debian.org (or you might be able to but you're taking a massive risk!) If I give a PC with Debian pre-installed to a friend, I can say go to Debian.org because I'm covered by the non-commercial bit. But if you're a business, then YOU are liable to provide the source. If the download site goes away and you haven't made a copy, you're sunk. You have legal obligations and you can't meet them. You're in deep doodoo if someone calls you on them. So you NEED to make a copy. And once you've done that, you might as well burn a CD/DVD for every PC you sell. If you do that, then when they come to you saying I demand my copy of the source that the GPL says you have to give me, you can say you got it with the PC. If you've lost it, tough luck. Not that I'd advise being that harsh to your customers, but at least you can legally say shove off without being in breach of the licence (good customer relations says you should say okay, I'll burn you another copy :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as something involving the transfer of money. If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right (the right not to distribute any source) which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. And what about societies without money? fee does NOT equal money. Your common knowledge is not my understanding ... Okay, now I'm really curious. Exactly which societies without money are you talking about? There's groups of friends who do each other favours. There's people who are so poor they have to barter - you're aware, of course, that in Eastern Europe that was quite normal - cash was worthless. Even between businesses and governments - there was a thriving barter market worth millions of pounds without any money changing hands at all... There's plenty of societies where I live (England) who have a system (yes I know it's like money) where you earn points and trade them. And one only has to look close to home at the world of Free Software, where code and respect are the items of currency, not money :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at the copyright holder's expense :-) Look at SCOG and how they got dealt with in Germany ... What license did SCOG have that specified Germany as a choice of venue? They didn't. But they made loads of noise about how linux infringed their copyrights. One complaint to a court by an infuriated linux developer, and one injunction and fine later, they shut up shop. I think that took less than six months. Look at where we are now in the US - four or five years later and still going strong ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Anthony W. Youngman writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at the copyright holder's expense :-) Look at SCOG and how they got dealt with in Germany ... What license did SCOG have that specified Germany as a choice of venue? They didn't. But they made loads of noise about how linux infringed their copyrights. One complaint to a court by an infuriated linux developer, and one injunction and fine later, they shut up shop. I think that took less than six months. Look at where we are now in the US - four or five years later and still going strong ... There are several points that can be made here: (1) If I recall correctly, SCO's speaker was from the US and probably did not get advice from German legal counsel on what to say. Such an injunction is almost impossible to get in the US due to differences in free speech laws. Copyright laws tend to be more uniform thanks to the Berne Convention and UCC. Because SCO's questionable behavior in Germany was commercial speech rather than anything related to copyright, the contrasts or similarities may not give that much insight into how free software licenses should work. iirc, you recall wrong. This was stuff posted on the www.sco.de website, iirc. (2) This is an example of how normal rules on venue can reach results preferable to those under unilaterally selected or convenient venue (since SCO would love to have all its lawsuits venued in Utah). And why, under English law, it is pretty automatic for a private defendant to have the right to choose venue ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE agrees. I just read the contents of /usr/share/doc/bacula-director-sqlite/copyright I have reproduced it below for debian-legal. The Linking section, which is needed for linking with OpenSSL, is not a problem for GPL-compatibility. The other parts may or may not be a problem, and indeed seem superfluous, but all that is needed is the Linking section. But the problem is that parts of Bacula's code are copyrighted by third parties, and licensed under plain GPL (or Kern's license before he added this exception), and may be unreachable for obtaining permission to relicense with this exception. (Kern, have you tried contacting them?) The Kern's licence thingy isn't a problem. If I, for example, release a load of code under the GPL, and then later say I'm releasing all my code - *including stuff already out there* - under the GPL, the fact that there may be loads of stuff of mine out there saying GPL is irrelevant. Anybody can now either add a copy of my statement about the LGPL to the licencing file, or add a pointer to my statement, and then they can take any of my code that claims to be GPL'd and use it under the LGPL. So if Kern has said that the addition of this extra freedom applies to all his code in Bacula, then anybody can add a copy of this statement to COPYING.TXT and be covered. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] This is England calling. Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue. English law. The UK is not England. The UK does *not* *have* a legal system, as legally it is two kingdoms, each with their constitutionally guaranteed separate legal systems (think of it as if the US congress could pass state laws that applied in one or other state, but could not pass laws which applied to the entire US as a whole. Weird, I know, but it's the system we have). The UK (yes I know I said we don't have a legal system) is a signatory to Berne, which merely guarantees that a foreigner has the same rights as the locals. So, as a USian, you can sue in the UK with exactly the same rights as a UK subject would have. Which is why, if as a UKian I want to sue in the US, I have to register my copyright with the Library of Congress just like you have to do. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue you in a court that works by a set of rules that I'm actually comfortable with. You know, it makes fighting those who do not follow your license the way you intended them to quite a bit easier. That's a strawman. The objection raised to choice-of-venue clauses is not what they specify to happen when the licensee has *infringed* the license, it's what they specify to happen when the licensee *hasn't* infringed the license but the copyright holder files a lawsuit against them anyway out of malice. Thing is, in most (non-American) civilised jurisdictions, the copyright holder is likely to get their knees put seriously out of joint by a very upset judge. I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at the copyright holder's expense :-) Look at SCOG and how they got dealt with in Germany ... That said, I don't like venue clauses. In the UK, as a private person it is pretty much automatic that if I'm sued, I get to specify venue. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: [...] Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In [...] Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such fails DFSG 1. That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as something involving the transfer of money. If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right (the right not to distribute any source) which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. And what about societies without money? fee does NOT equal money. Your common knowledge is not my understanding ... The GPL is a *licence*. By definition it is a *one* *way* grant *from* the licensor. The choice of venue is a demand by the licensor for something back. Therefore any licence with a choice of venue clause cannot be a pure licence. Oh - and the GPL does NOT demand anything back, so there is no payment *to* *the* *licensor*. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. Your own words condemn you :-) This is an accurate description of linux. Linux is owned by a proprietor, namely whoever (singular or plural) happens to own the copyright(s). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes with the losing party responsible for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. Haven't heard much if any comment on this. Dunno what UK law actually is on this, but I'd say this was *very* unfree. While our system has a strong loser pays *presumption*, we regularly have cases where it ends up winner pays! You would probably find this is unenforceable in the UK, and even if the choice of *law* was US law, a UK court probably would award costs against the winner if that was normal UK procedure. (This situation normally arises when a defendant tries to settle, and in the end a trial awards lesser damages than the defendant's offer to settle. This has been known to bankrupt plaintiffs on occasion...) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licenses
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes If this is the same company which is licensing its software under a dual GPL-and-proprietary model, I think it probably makes the most sense for your company to simply license the manual under the GPL. This means that your company is the only one which can distribute *printed* copies of the manual without attaching a CD, diskette, or offer to provide source code. Some people will probably be willing to pay for the professionally printed copies. :-) Note that, in the UK at least, adding a free CD jacks up the cost of a printed manual/book significantly. Given that a typical O'Reilly sells for between £20 and £40, adding a CD will also add about £5 tax to the price (books are VAT-free, adding a CD makes the *entire* *package* liable to 17.5% tax). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying proprietary when I used the word commercial. I also realize that the GPL does not preclude commercial == for profit usage. I was merely echoing the terminology used by Trolltech. I do not condone it however. If you use the word proprietary, you are merely echoing the terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their marketing slogan Unix is proprietary, Windows is open? If you use the word proprietary correctly, then linux is proprietary. proprietary means has an owner (which ALL copyrighted works do). The opposite of proprietary is Public Domain. Thanks as always for all your feedback. You're welcome :-) Shriramana Sharma. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (C) vs ©
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Ben Finney wrote: Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have heard that in copyright declarations like: Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. All rights reserved. --- it is incorrect to use (C) in place of the symbol © which is the strict copyright symbol. Is this so? If yes, why? It's possibly not a valid copyright indicator. The © symbol is unambiguous under the law, and thus preferred. unambiguous under the law, but technical ambiguous. What character encoding should be used? IMHO (c) is the character representation of the copyright symbol, and when you print it, you should substitute with the correct symbol, as the ff, ffl, fl, .. ligatures. Anyway when the symbol is not printed, it should be written in some other form (a sequence of bits, which are not law defined), so IMHO any obvious representation should be valid. And what if you have an old-fashioned typewriter. It's all very well saying you must use the copyright symbol, but what if your golfball/daisywheel/lineprinter doesn't have it? Or like me, it isn't on my keyboard, and I haven't learnt how to make my keyboard produce a copyright symbol? Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Can a font with an unfree character be free?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Mon, 14 May 2007, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/14/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering the fact that the actual symbol is a white wheelchair on a blue background, it's not clear that a black font would be a ^ derivative work of such a design. ^^^ I didn't think simply changing colors removed the original copyright. [emphasis added] If that is in fact what was done, it obviously doesn't. However, what is actually copyrighted is a specific representation of a person in a wheelchair, and the creation of derivative works thereof. It's not clear that all minimalistic representations of a person in a wheelchair would be derivative works of the ISA. And, considering the very restricted meaning of copying under copyright law, if I have a printout of the symbol and design a copy of it using a computer, then as far as copyright law goes it is not a derivative. It may be a breach of trademark... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License-Question (expanded GPL)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cord Beermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi. I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. It's the GNU *General* Public Licence. There's no such thing (afaik) as the GNU Public Licence. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. This requirement is incompatible with the GPL. In other words, this paragraph contradicts the previous one. NOT a good idea in a licence grant. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net I think this has the same problems as the previous paragraph. Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? No distributor with any sense would touch this with a bargepole. Your grant of licence is self-contradictory, and as such it would not be wise to rely on it... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (C) vs ©
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney wrote: [the (C) sequence is] possibly not a valid copyright indicator. The © symbol is unambiguous under the law, and thus preferred. unambiguous under the law, but technical ambiguous. What character encoding should be used? The same encoding as the rest of the file. And if that encoding is 7-bit ascii ??? Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. [...] First, I think b is not an exception but a restriction. Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html I think you're wrong here ... (certainly if the entire grant is by a single entity) That isn't much different to using the plain GPL with an OpenSSL-like licence - both licences are DFSG-free, but we can't satisy both of them simultaneously without additional permission on the GPL side. Of course a copyright holder of the entire work could still copy and distribute and so on because they don't need a licence but we can't because we can't satisfy both of those restrictions simultaneously. The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. As, presumably, they do. Hence GPL plus restrictions. I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not GPL, but GPL plus restrictions. The result can't be invalid, because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to what is granted. A GPL plus restrictions is only invalid when the GPL is granted by one entity, and the restrictions imposed by a different one. I can't licence my code as plus restrictions and mix it with pure GPL code by someone else. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with LARGE files
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Would it be reasonable to request someone had to spend £100 on an external hard disc and postage if they wanted to request the source to my program? and is there any way I could ever get such a program into Debian? Perhaps a different license? The GPL allows you to charge for the cost of distributing source. If you state up front that if the customer wants source, it's provided on a hard disk and costs £100, I can't see a problem. Indeed, if it's that big, and impractical to provide on DVD, I can't see a problem if you *don't* state that up front. Of course, if you charge £100, you'll get the gratis software police moaning blue murder that it's not free but the GPL (and *F*ree Software) isn't interested in that sort of argument. At the end of the day, the GPL allows you to recover reasonable costs for distributing source, and if you say that the only reasonable way to distribute that quantity of source is on hard disk, then they have to pay for it if they want it. And you can say to them well, you put it on a free download site then. I don't care!. Unless they've got more money than sense, or are desperate to flaunt their gratis credentials, they'll back off sharply! Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
