Re: is it allowed to deny access to obsolete GPL2 source packages?
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:51:59AM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: Dropping the sources immediately is surely not the idea behind GPL2. Sure it is. GPL2 requires that sources are available *with* binaries. The only place where GPL2 requires a distributor to provide sources later is if the distributor specifically took advantage of 3b and provided, instead of the source, a written offer to provide source to anybody at request for a limited period. When binaries are delivered on the network with sources available at the same time at the downloader's discretion, 3a (which contains no requirement for prolonged source access) is generally assumed to apply. If I run into a problem, then I might like to look at the sources and the patches applied by the pm, regardless whether the binaries have been removed from the ftp server. GPL2 assumes that you downloaded source with binaries (or took advantage of a written offer for sources if provided). If you chose not to, that's your choice, and the consequences of that choice are yours as well. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: The Expat license terms URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent. For some scripts, even that is excessively long. What I personally use is a note of the form You may treat this file as if it were in the public domain. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:56:01AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I think this is a bit vague, since there's no clear explicit definition of public domain in copyright laws I am aware of. Laws don't define all the phrases they use, and they generally avoid defining phrases they don't use. This one is probably not defined because the laws do not actually need to use the phrase. Aside from some people incorrectly using public domain as a synonym for shareware (and similar misuses), I am not aware of any serious dispute as to what the term means. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: As I said, the laws *do* use that term... My mistake, sorry. Still, the main point stands. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 05:22:54PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (people misusing the term as if it were equivalent to shareware), there's no serious dispute as to what public domain means. More or less, yes. You're lucky to almost always deal with knowledgeable people! :-) In my own experience, I've heard the term public domain used and abused in every possible (and impossible) meaning... [...] but I've heard (misinformed) people abusing the term as if it meant: * freeware * shareware * free software (e.g.: Linux is in the public domain [sic]) * published on the web or more generally on the Internet (e.g.: I found it on the Internet, hence it's in the public domain [sic]) * gratuitously obtained * ... These all were implicitly included in the caveat I made. The key test is whether a court of law would decide that I did not mean the dictionary definition of the term AND that any reasonable person would realize that. I do not think it is that bad yet. I fully agree that an established license is generally a good idea. However, there are situations where you really want a oneliner; the one I gave is the best one I've been able to devise (or seen written by others), and is unambiguous to anyone who knows the relevant terminology. (Somehow this discussion reminds me of Guy Steele's Growing a Language.) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Referring to upstream copyright statement from debian/copyright
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:58:10PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: or should I be pasting the entire text of AUTHORS into debian/copyright? Yes you should. The promise we make in Policy is that the copyright and licensing status of the package is provided in the debian/copyright file, and the only exception we make is that common-licenses are incorporated by reference and not by textual inclusion. The idea is that it is sufficient to extract that one file from the package to get this information. I don't believe you can build the copyright file at build time either. From Policy 12.5: A copy of the file which will be installed in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the source package. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/
Re: GPL 3 and derivatives
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:37:33AM +0100, Olive wrote: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:01:18PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work or create a derivative work to read and understand his countries copyright laws? Ignorance of law is usually no defense in a court of law. Yes in principle. There is a reason why I said usually :) For example, I know of a recent apellate court decision here in Finland where a defendant was acquitted of criminal charges because he had misunderstood what the law said about his conduct; but there were special circumstances involved. Although in some countries (for example Belgium); courts usually interprets contracts as what a normally educated people will understand. Of course. Still, I believe the courts will give precedence to definitions in the actual contract text, and the case being discussed here involves a definition in the GPL. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland (IANAL) http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL 3 and derivatives
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:01:18PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work or create a derivative work to read and understand his countries copyright laws? Ignorance of law is usually no defense in a court of law. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: algorithm copyright? what's that?
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Nicolas Limare wrote: Terms and conditions for using, copying, distribution and modification of FooBar versions 2.x and 3.x. You acknowledge to be informed about the following facts, and you accept the consequences: [...] You agree to: [...] But, I wonder if this licence has any legal value. It reads to me like a contract, not a (bare) license. In the contract, the other party is granted the copyright license to copy, modify etc and in exchange the party agrees to follow those other (non-copyright) requirements (sort of like someone might agree to pay a specific sum, which is not a copyright requirement either). I wouldn't say it is obviously without legal value, and as a conservative estimate I would assume that the whole document is legally binding. Beyond that, I cannot say. Is it a kind of algorithm copyright? No. IANAL etc -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: algorithm copyright? what's that?
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 09:16:55AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it a kind of algorithm copyright? No. In some countries there is. They call it a patent. A patent is not a copyright. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:31:00AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: Now, as for me, I will admit that I don't know much about non-US law, although I would be very surprised to hear that law is more liberal on this point in the EU than the US, since these no practice without a license laws are consumer protection in nature, and as a general rule, the EU is more strict than the US on such things. Generally, Finnish (and I assume therefore EU) consumer protection does not apply to transactions between private individuals (that is, when the seller is not engaging in or practicing trade), and neither does it apply to situations like debian-legal where nobody is selling anything. 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. IANLT (... legally trained) and all that -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: all rights reserved and GPL
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:13:04PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: // Copyright (C) 2007, Company X. All rights reserved. 1) Is the usage of All rights reserved appropriate when a file is being licensed under the GPL, or in fact under whatever license? No. 2) What is the purpose of its usage? There was once an international convention that required the phrase for copyright protection to apply. The convention is no longer relevant. 3) If it is that the licensor wants to say: Any rights I have not explicitly given you, you do not have? They don't need to say anything, as this is the normal state of affairs. 5) Is it *advisable* to use such a terminology in a copyright statement in a file licensed under the GPL? No. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (C) vs ©
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 12:38:28PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: So I can simply avoid using either (C) or © and thus avoid this whole problem? Sorry, I misread your question originally. You can drop the word Copyright, but you cannot drop the copyright symbol, if you care about UCC compliance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (C) vs ©
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:14:31PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: it is incorrect to use (C) in place of the symbol © which is the strict copyright symbol. Is this so? If yes, why? IANAL etc. The formal copyright notice is required in some (very few) countries for a foreign work to get copyright protection; see the Universal Copyright Convention. The format is specified as follows: [...] if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol © accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright. (from Article III of the Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971) There is nothing in the Convention saying that (C) is an acceptable substitute for ©, which is why it is prudent not to assume that it is :) Most countries (including the USA and all of the EU) are party to the Berne Convention, which specifies that any work that is copyrightable is automatically copyrighted until the protection expires. However, in some countries copyright notices or other formalities such as registration entitles the copyright proprietor to an enhanced version of copyright beyond the basic Berne Convention copyright: for example, in the USA, it increases the amount of damages one can successfully claim in a copyright trial. Copyright notice can also serve as evidence of authorship if disputed. Further, whether (C) or ©, isn't it superfluous to use it after the word copyright which itself means the same thing? Yes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the University of Edinburgh clickwrap GPL DFSG-free?
Don Armstrong wrote: This may be what he's asking, but if so, it's the wrong question. Just to make it clear. The questions I am interested in are: 1) Does this license allow me to treat the package as licensed under the plain GPL in terms of what I am allowed to do? 1b) If I were to package this software, would the package be under the GPL? 2) Is the license DFSG-free? (Obviously, if the answer to 1 is yes, then the answer to 2 is also yes.) I personally believe the answer to all three questions is yes, but I wanted to make sure there isn't some trapdoor in the clickwrap that I am missing. Specifically, 1) is the language in their point 1.2 general enough so that the GPL applies in all activities where the GPL is intended by the FSF to apply (that is, does the phrase redistribution with and without modification cover everything that matters), and 2) does their warranty disclaimer cause problems? Answering the is this actually GPLed question makes the DFSG freeness of the clickwrap moot. Not moot but trivial. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is the University of Edinburgh clickwrap GPL DFSG-free?
MJ Ray wrote: 2) Is the license DFSG-free? This question is nonsense, as already mentioned (software not licences - see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/licences.html ). Well then, rephrase this as Assuming that the license under discussion is the only license applying for this software, is the software DFSG-free. (The assumption is needed because a pre-packaging license audit might find some additional licensing tidbits, and I'll deal with that later, if I get that far.) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Is the University of Edinburgh clickwrap GPL DFSG-free?
Is the following license, displayed as a precondition for downloading the software, DFSG-free? (Specifically, are there any traps in it that I am not seeing?) (NB. This links is a programming language implementation, not a version of the web browser by the same name.) License Agreement In downloading this package, I agree to the license below and agree to be bound by the terms in the country in which I am permanently resident. The University of Edinburgh GPL Licence for [Links] Copyright (C), [2004], The University Court of the University of Edinburgh, Old College, Edinburgh, UK PLEASE READ THIS LICENCE (THE LICENCE) CAREFULLY. THE UNIVERSITY COURT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, OLD COLLEGE, EDINBURGH, EH8 9YL, UK (EDINBURGH) ACTING THROUGH THE ITS SCHOOL OF INFORMATICS, 2 BUCCLEAUGH PLACE, EDINBURGH, EH8 9LW, UK HAS DEVELOPED THE [Links] (SOFTWARE) AND IS WILLING TO GRANT YOU A LICENCE TO SOFTWARE ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS. BY CLICKING ON THE 'ACCEPT' BUTTON, YOU (THE USER) ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS LICENCE AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS OF THIS LICENCE, EDINBURGH GRANTS NO LICENCE TO USE SOFTWARE, AND THEREFORE YOU SHOULD CLICK ON THE 'REJECT' BUTTON TO EXIT THIS PROCESS. LICENCE CONDITIONS 1.1This program is free software. 1.2Redistribution with or without modifications are permitted under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence (Version 2, 1991, published by the Free Software Foundation, a copy of which is set out below). 1.3THIS PROGRAM IS DISTRIBUTED IN THE HOPE THAT IT WILL BE USEFUL. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW AND EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING EDINBURGH AND / OR ITS EMPLOYEES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 1.4IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL EDINBURGH AND / OR ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR LOSS AND / OR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS AND / OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFIT, OR FAILURE TO MAKE ANTICIPATED SAVINGS, OR COSTS OF WASTED TIME, OR COSTS OF MISSED BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, OR GOODWILL, OR LOSS OF DATA, OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE, OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES, OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH WAS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE OR EDINBURGH AND / OR ITS EMPLOYEES OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS AND / OR DAMAGES. EDINBURGH DOES NOT EXCLUDE LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY CAUSED BY THE NEGLICENCEOF EDINBURGH OR ITS EMPLOYEES. [ A copy of GPL2 follows in the original, not included in this email ] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is the University of Edinburgh clickwrap GPL DFSG-free?
Don Armstrong wrote: Since (or assuming) it actually is GPLed, you can totally ignore the clickwrap. Simply arrange[1] to have the code distributed to you simply under the terms of the GPL. [If it's not possible to ignore the clickwrap entirely, then it's not actually GPLed.] Well, if I can get a GPL copy by this mechanism, then I can just get it myself and treat it as GPL. The question is, does that additional license restrict the applicability of GPL. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
On 20050723T013237+0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free, but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main? This is not a universally applicable rule, but: When a good programmer writes uncommented code, it's usually written in a way that requires no comments for understanding it. When a good programmer writes commented code, the comments are often actually important for understanding the code (say, the code is necessarily so hairy that one needs to have a high-level understanding of it to be able to make sense of it; that understanding will be induced by the comment). In the second case, removing the comments will make the source code unmaintainable, while in the first case, the commentless source code is perfectly maintainable. As to whether this affects DFSG freeness, I cannot say. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patents on encoders in Europe
On 20050723T144156+0200, Loïc Minier wrote: With the recent clarifications on software patents in Europe, would it be possible to distribute encoders packages from Europe? Actually, the recent decision had the side-effect that the swpat situation was *not* clarified (the parliament's decision was refusal to clarify it in a way that we find bad). The situation, therefore, is unchanged. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
On 20050606T165853-0400, Jeff King wrote: So what's wrong with a license like: You may do anything with this work that you would with a work in the public domain. I have occasionally used the following notice: Written by Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho. You may treat this file as if it were in the public domain. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian
Re: You should accept FDL
On 20050527T210143+0200, Bernd Warken wrote: I think that Debian is against the Free Document License because of the Invariant Sections. Not solely. But at the addendum of the FDL, you find means of using the FDL, for example without invariant sections. Usually, you choose your license without invariant sections. So the FDL with this addendum should be fully ok for Debian. It's not. A good summary of the issues is at http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
On 20030428T234517-0700, Alex Romosan wrote: so no, debian didn't come up with the idea of free software. Are you trolling? Anyway, the generally accepted concept of software in the context of software engineering includes not only the programs themselfs being produced but also all documentation about the development process, user documentation, internal documentation, data files required by the program (not input but for example UnicodeData.txt) and in general all deliverables produced by the development process. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/ pgpJfM0GOooab.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
On 20030429T104014-0700, Alex Romosan wrote: no, i am not. i was just merely responding to the statement that the debian project was founded in august of 1993 while the WHY-FREE manifesto dates from 1994, and hence it was claimed that the social contract preceded the WHY-FREE manifesto. i pointed out the social contract was not adopted until 1997. is that clear enough for you? Go read the thread again and note how you misrepresent it here. You wrote so no, debian didn't come up with the idea of free software (which was, BTW, totally out of place in the thread); do you really think that is a way of saying that the social contract was not adopted until 1997? If you think that a GNU document is the raison d'être of Debian, don't you think that place belongs to the GNU manifesto? (Note that I don't think it belongs to any GNU document.) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/ pgpQmSLg1Qq9L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote: Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of opinion which stands on it's own rather than rebutting someone else's statement. You are completely missing the camp that says that documentation is software: Documents under the GFDL are software and hence must be judged by the standard set by the DFSG. (There are similar variants here as in what you discussed.) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/ pgpkEF1RiWsRB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
On 20030429T140523-0700, Alex Romosan wrote: have taken upon yourselves to extend the definition of software, purge the distribution of what you deem impure, and in general ignore any opinions that don't agree with yours. For this insult alone you deserve a *plonk*. (To say nothing about the unfoundedness of the rest of your mail.) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/ pgpCsKarQjRup.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
Let's try again with a cooler head... On 20030429T140523-0700, Alex Romosan wrote: here it is what anthony towns said on tue, 29 apr 2003 15:47:51 +1000 No, it's not. Our raison d'etre is documented in the Debian Manifesto, distributed in the doc-debian package. Or it's the Debian Constitution, the Debian Social Contract, or the Debian Free Software Guidelines distributed in the same package. If you look at the Debian History package, you'll find the statement that `The Debian Project was officially founded by Ian Murdock on August 16th, 1993.', which stands in interesting contrast to WHY-FREE's `Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman'. which, at least to me, seems to imply that debian and its lofty ideals preceded the WHY-FREE manifesto by at least a year. Well, taken literally that is true. Debian did precede WHY-FREE. I would understand your position a little more if you defended the GNU manifesto and not WHY-FREE which is a newer creation. I would still disagree with you, but I'd understand your position better. i don't think it was either, since at the very beginning (and i've been using debian since early in 1995) there was no obsession with software purity. I have observed that the awareness within Debian and in the free software community general of issues surrounding free software has been gradually increasing. This is not a Debian-only trend. The community at large has realized that what they thought to be okay isn't okay after all (granted, there are also a lot of people who don't care and are hostile to any such moves, but this seems to coincide with the rather large set of people who really don't give a damn about doing the right thing, either legally or morally). A famous example is the BSD advertising clause. this came about in 1997 and culminated with the social contract written by bruce perens (who later on left the project when it looked like, and it was, hijacked by the completely free-software zealots) Debian is not even now run completely by free software zealots. now a different bunch of zealots are trying to hijack the project once again attempting to extend the definition of software Again, this is a matter of realizing and fixing past mistakes. I myself have used the documentation is not software argument - successfully - to get a package past ftpmaster. I now believe that I was mistaken then. As I said, in the software engineering discipline, software has for a long time stood for a lot more than just the code. i think the debian project as a whole needs to reach a consensus before anybody starts removing files from packages because the said files don't meet their purity standards. this is not happening. you have taken upon yourselves to extend the definition of software, purge the distribution of what you deem impure, and in general ignore any opinions that don't agree with yours. I still find this very insulting and very unfounded. I demand you support these accusations with hard evidence. it is because of zealots like you every revolution fails in the end. So it is wrong for me to defend what I believe is right? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% pgpNBDuWRCHfG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Knoppix and GPL
On 20030428T152631+0200, Klaus Knopper wrote: technically, if you demand that they keep obsolete sources for 3 years or longer, there would be no mirror left willing to keep old software that long. The three-year requirement does not apply if sources are distributed along the binaries (offering them for download in the same place as the binaries is explicitly sufficient). So, again, Where are the sources of emacs 1.0? Was there an Emacs 1.0? :-) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/ pgpvCtcti52Xb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Knoppix and GPL
On 20030427T095714+0200, Oliver M. Bolzer wrote: To my knowledge Klaus Knopper has repeatedly stated that he would send the source to anyone if they sent him the needed number of blank CD-Rs. IMHO that's a reasonable way to distribute source, though slightly inconvenient. The blank CD-Rs would be the cost of physically performing source distribution. Yes. Do they bundle a written offer to do this, valid for at least three years? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/ pgpFSuaIM06DB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs
On 20030416T094049-0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: * Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this license. And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license were made... invariant! If we were to add to each GFDL'd document a section (invariant or not) saying, essentially, that we consider GFDL a non-free license (what else can that section say?), we would have to start moving such documents to nonfree at the same time. Otherwise we'd be hypocrites. Personally I believe that simply moving them to nonfree is far more effective than such an added section. Look at the publicity our stance against KDE used to generate when it had its license problem. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/ pgpCgRIpUXBQM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dissident versus ASP
On 20030318T175843-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I did. I formulated the dissident test long before I even *knew* of the ASP loophole. I therefore did not formulate it as some strategy for keeping people from closing it. Huh? As you know, logical connectives do not talk about intentions or reasons of formulation. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/
Re: OSD DFSG convergence
On 20030126T125505-0500, Russell Nelson wrote: One is that software must comply with the DFSG to be a part of Debian, and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of public-domain unlicensed software. As far as I know, public-domain software does not exist. The only way for a program to enter the public domain would be for it to be so old that its author has been dead for 70 years. There was no software 70 years ago. The common phrase this program is in the public domain is in my experience often misapplied by authors (they mean something else than I revoke all my rights to this work). In the cases where it is really what they mean, I would consider it a license, in which case DFSG does apply. I am not a lawyer, though. If you have a lawyer's opinion this, I'd like to hear it. Another problem is that the DFSG does not prohibit a license from requiring a specific form of affirmative assent known as click-wrap. I have a vague memory of such licenses been deemed non-DFSG-compliant in the past, but I don't have references. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, FM (MSc) * http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A GNU GPL question (might be slightly OT)
On 20020906T180308+0200, Fredrik Persson wrote: This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place to ask this question, and failed. The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for licensing questions but I forget what it was. That is my question. Who is right, Jim or Jill? I think it's a really important question, too. I shall explain why. I see your point. My initial answer would be that Jim is right, assuming that the offer is properly dated (as it should be). But this does not address the problem. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft
On 20020215T115256+, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: I would have thought that in this situation you could get away with putting the source on a web site and telling the students to download it within a few days. That way they have been given the source. No, you couldn't. (Unless the copyright holder never finds out or just doesn't care.) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft
On 20020214T101613-0800, Don Marti wrote: The GPL says you only have to _offer_ them the source. If they want it on physical media you can tell them to bring a floppy to office hours; otherwise just put it on a web site. That's not sufficient according to my reading. There are exactly three choices, according to point three: 1) I give them the source 2) I give them a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give anybody the source 3) I forward such a written offer I myself received to them. Number three is not available most of the time. If you disagree, please give exact references. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft
On 20020214T102905-0800, Nick Moffitt wrote: Or a written offer, good for three years. Yes, and that's a greater nuisance IMO. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: (The canonical example here is TeX which has such a restriction.) TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear license, but everyone still treats it as free software. (This was the case at least when I last looked at it, which was a year or two ago. I'd be delighted if someone could show I'm wrong about this.) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED] tutkimusavustaja / research assistant Jyväskylän yliopisto, tietotekniikan laitos University of Jyväskylä, Department of Mathematical Information Technology
Re: Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license. Would you please give a reference to it? -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED] tutkimusavustaja / research assistant Jyväskylän yliopisto, tietotekniikan laitos University of Jyväskylä, Department of Mathematical Information Technology
Re: MIT License?
On 2829T154235+0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: I have been looking at a piece of software which is under the MIT license. Its probably good enough to use for debian It's definitely good enough for Debian. but I'd like to know the pros and cons of the MIT license when compared with GPL or BSD. The MIT license is essentially a better worded version of the BSD license without the advertising clause. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Hypertekstivisionääri Ted Nelson luennoi Jyväskylässä 29.-31.8. Lisätietoja saa minulta.
libapache-mod-fastcgi license?
ftp-master incoming contains libapache-mod-fastcgi aimed at non-free.
I'm (as ftpmaster) wondering about whether it can go to non-free or if
it cannot be put in Debian at all.
The license is this:
8--
This FastCGI application library source and object code (the
"Software") and its documentation (the "Documentation") are
copyrighted by Open Market, Inc ("Open Market"). The following terms
apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation
unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files.
Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license
this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of
implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or
derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and
promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other
purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all
copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions.
No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of
the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation
may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing
terms described here, but the modified Software and Documentation must
be used for the sole purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification
defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed
by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and
for no other purpose. If modifications to this Software and
Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must protect Open
Market's proprietary rights in the Software and Documentation to the
same extent as these licensing terms and must be clearly indicated on
the first page of each file where they apply.
Open Market shall retain all right, title and interest in and to the
Software and Documentation, including without limitation all patent,
copyright, trade secret and other proprietary rights.
OPEN MARKET MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE
SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN
NO EVENT SHALL OPEN MARKET BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY
DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE OR THE
DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR
LOST DATA, EVEN IF OPEN MARKET HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS".
OPEN MARKET HAS NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION.
8--
I'm especially concerned about the second paragraph: distribution is
only allowed for a given purpose.
Thoughts?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
libapache-mod-fastcgi license?
ftp-master incoming contains libapache-mod-fastcgi aimed at non-free. I'm (as ftpmaster) wondering about whether it can go to non-free or if it cannot be put in Debian at all. The license is this: 8-- This FastCGI application library source and object code (the Software) and its documentation (the Documentation) are copyrighted by Open Market, Inc (Open Market). The following terms apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files. Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing terms described here, but the modified Software and Documentation must be used for the sole purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other purpose. If modifications to this Software and Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must protect Open Market's proprietary rights in the Software and Documentation to the same extent as these licensing terms and must be clearly indicated on the first page of each file where they apply. Open Market shall retain all right, title and interest in and to the Software and Documentation, including without limitation all patent, copyright, trade secret and other proprietary rights. OPEN MARKET MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL OPEN MARKET BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR LOST DATA, EVEN IF OPEN MARKET HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED AS IS. OPEN MARKET HAS NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION. 8-- I'm especially concerned about the second paragraph: distribution is only allowed for a given purpose. Thoughts? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: DFSG Copyright?
On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 01:22:56PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: The entire debian website is licensed under the Open Publication License (http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/), and that includes the page the DFSG is on. DFSG is also part of the Policy Manual, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or any later version. So it seems the DFSG is (at least) dual-licensed. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: DFSG Copyright?
On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 01:22:56PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: The entire debian website is licensed under the Open Publication License (http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/), and that includes the page the DFSG is on. DFSG is also part of the Policy Manual, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or any later version. So it seems the DFSG is (at least) dual-licensed. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] What does 'General Public License' mean?
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 08:24:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: What does 'General Public License' mean? Is it 'General' + 'Public License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'? I asked pecisely this question from RMS less than a week ago. His response is that it was originally a license for the general public (thus, general public + license) but now it is more a general license to the public. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:38:01AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: Here is the language I came up with: A special exception to the GPL listed below is that this program may be linked with any libraries or components that are distributed under a license that meets the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html), and that such components shall be considered seperate works, not covered under the terms of this license. However, I'm not sure that this language is legally sound. Please help me debug it. You should add language that explicitly allows anyone to revert to plain GPL (to allow adding code from your project to plain-GPL projects). See the Guile exception clause for an example. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:38:01AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: Here is the language I came up with: A special exception to the GPL listed below is that this program may be linked with any libraries or components that are distributed under a license that meets the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html), and that such components shall be considered seperate works, not covered under the terms of this license. However, I'm not sure that this language is legally sound. Please help me debug it. You should add language that explicitly allows anyone to revert to plain GPL (to allow adding code from your project to plain-GPL projects). See the Guile exception clause for an example. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 09:56:03PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: I don't know the Guile license, but this is the exeption that GNU Classpath project uses to allow linking with anything not GPLed. (All Classpath code is copyrighted by the FSF.) I expect that the Guile license is almost the same. The Guile exception clause is different: * As a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives permission * for additional uses of the text contained in its release of GUILE. * * The exception is that, if you link the GUILE library with other files * to produce an executable, this does not by itself cause the * resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. * Your use of that executable is in no way restricted on account of * linking the GUILE library code into it. * * This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why * the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. * * This exception applies only to the code released by the * Free Software Foundation under the name GUILE. If you copy * code from other Free Software Foundation releases into a copy of * GUILE, as the General Public License permits, the exception does * not apply to the code that you add in this way. To avoid misleading * anyone as to the status of such modified files, you must delete * this exception notice from them. * * If you write modifications of your own for GUILE, it is your choice * whether to permit this exception to apply to your modifications. * If you do not wish that, delete this exception notice. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: complete clone of the debian website
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Joey Hess wrote: http://www.491.org/projets/api/ Nice. Time to write them a letter I guess. How about something like this: Sounds OK. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:56:44AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: as Jutta pointed out Who? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% I'm moving IRL on May 2, 2000. New contact information on the home page
Re: ITP: vice and vice-roms
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:31:01PM -0600, David Starner wrote: IIRC, ceasing to exist just takes the copyrights with you, and no one has the right to use them. (All at once, We love the copyright laws! We love the copyright laws! (-: ) Copyright is property just like anything else, and it is either sold, or transferred to heirs or debtors. It does not cease to exist (if it did, then there would be no copyright and hence the work would be in the PD). IANAL, and I know very little of law outside Finland. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: New OPL Draft
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:33:46AM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: They are *always* : - translated by person who know very little about language he translates to ( translator have to know language he translate from only, this can be easily fixed by allowing everyone to change a book ) Wrong. Most translators translate to their native language. - paid by page (both author and translator, remember paid by line of code programers ?) Not necessarily. I know (and have been involved in) projects where the pay was a fixed sum regardless of how long the project took or how many pages the result took. (Well, the projects I have been involved in were nonfiction but nevertheless...) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: New OPL Draft
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:58:00AM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: Of course. But they always use some strange dialect full of forms word-by-word translated from language they translate from. That's usually a sign of a raw translation. A good translation is rewritten at least once, the second time for getting the to-language better. This is so far away from real Polish ... (or whatever you speak natively) True. But usually you see those only in cheap translations. I've read many books where the Finnish language is quite readable and pleasant (and many awful ones too). -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: If the program is being distributed with the BSDish readline, and not the GPLed readline, then there's no issue. But if the program is distributed with the GPLed readline, and not the BSDish readline, then it's pretty obvious that there's an issue. If the program is being distributed with both, then it comes down to which the program is configured to use. What if it's distributed with neither of them, and it just build-depends on the readline API? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:13:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:09:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: What if it's distributed with neither of them, and it just build-depends on the readline API? That sounds like an artificial situation. Who is going to distribute non-working executables? Why? Ah, you were talking about executables, not source. Sorry about that. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: x3270 licenses
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:19:12AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: Nope, this is fine. Use is covered by the Fair Use provision of Copyright law. The fonts are free. Is this the n+1th abuse of Fair Use, or do you actually have some arguments supporting that claim? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: x3270 licenses
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:17:41AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: You have a copy of the program. You want to tell me you now need special permission to run it? Not necessarily. But my question was how Fair Use comes into play, not whether use really is restricted or not. In other words, I was attacking your argument, not your conclusion. AFAIK, US fair use includes such things as scientific or journalistic citation or commentary, and making copies for one's education. For example, republishing a book is not fair use, and use of fonts often is republication. Analogy: You have a book and before you may read it you must get permission. Reading does not involve making a pysical copy of the book. Yeah, I'd say I'm pretty sure running the program is fair use. If it weren't, you would not be allowed to run GPL'd software since you are not given permission to do so. Not true. The GPL *explicitly* allows all use. Fair use is not even near the issue. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: x3270 licenses
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 01:37:01PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: Fair Use has a different meanings in US and Europe, just like Free Speach. I know. In Finland, there is no such thing as Fair Use. (Many of) the privileges the Fair Use implicitly grants to people in the US and elsewhere are explicitly enumerated in Finnish copyright law. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: x3270 licenses
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:09:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Anyways, I don't see anything that says that a person who owns a legal copy of a font would not be allowed to prepare text which displays that font. I don't argue against that. I just have the distinct feeling that Fair Use is not the answer here ;-) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: webmin license
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:26:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: [snip something which could equally well be a direct translation of the Danish law] Not according to your previous message: you said there that the Danish law required one to have the right to run the program, but the Finnish one requires you to be in possession of a legal copy. (Apparently this right can be revoked by a contract.) It explicitly can't here. Clauses 2 and 3 of the same paragraph in Finnish law explicitly can't, but this was clause 1. Clause 2 deals with the right to a backup copy, and clause 3 deals with the right to observe how the program works to determine the methods it uses. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: VMware in non-free
On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 02:00:25PM +0200, Tommi Virtanen wrote: Please have a look at http://www.vmware.com/ and help me decide if we can distribute VMware in non-free, or only as an installer package. I currently think we can only do an installer.. I can't find on the VMware site any permission to distribute anything, so that'll give us only the option of an installer. Of course, you could mail them and ask for distribution permission - if you get it, this would be enough to allow it to go to non-free. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Is LaTeX Project Public License free?
distribution describes when it makes sense to modify or generate such files. The above restrictions are not intended to prohibit, and hence do not apply to, the updating, by any method, of a file so that it becomes identical to the latest version of that file in The Program. NOTES = We believe that these requirements give you the freedom you to make modifications that conform with whatever technical specifications you wish, whilst maintaining the availability, integrity and reliability of The Program. If you do not see how to achieve your goal whilst adhering to these requirements then read the document cfgguide.tex in the base LaTeX distribution for suggestions. Because of the portability and exchangeability aspects of systems like LaTeX, The LaTeX3 Project deprecates the distribution of non-standard versions of components of LaTeX or of generally available contributed code for them but such distributions are permitted under the above restrictions. The document modguide.tex in the base LaTeX distribution details the reasons for the legal requirements detailed above. Even if The Program is unrelated to LaTeX, the argument in modguide.tex may still apply, and should be read before a modified version of The Program is distributed. Conditions on individual files == The individual files may bear additional conditions which supersede the general conditions on distribution and modification contained in this file. If there are any such files, the distribution of The Program will contain a prominent file that lists all the exceptional files. Typical examples of files with more restrictive modification conditions would be files that contain the text of copyright notices. * The conditions on individual files differ only in the extent of *modification* that is allowed. * The conditions on *distribution* are the same for all the files. Thus a (re)distributor of a complete, unchanged copy of The Program need meet only the conditions in this file; it is not necessary to check the header of every file in the distribution to check that a distribution meets these requirements. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: MMIX license OK for main?
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 10:14:15AM +, Mike Goldman wrote: I don't think the license is a problem anyhow, here's my analyis. ... which does not address the two specific points I raised in my original mail. I am not convinced. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: MMIX license OK for main?
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 11:02:21AM +, Mike Goldman wrote: Well, it *does* address the issue of modified works. Either call it something other than MMIXware, or distribute pristine source plus patches. Where does it say anything about distributing modified works? It just says that modification is allowed... And what about the binaries? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: MMIX license OK for main?
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 11:59:53AM +, Mike Goldman wrote: If we're required to take a position that absence of explicit grant to distribute binaries is denial of the right, you may be correct That's how modern copyright operates. Everything is denied until explicitly allowed. This is almost a FAQ already... -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: Corel's apt frontend
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: For the case of U.S. copyright law dynamic linking not explicitly provided for in the license is a fair use issue, not a this isn't covered by copyright law issue. I know nothing of US copyright law except that it and Finnish copyright law are based on the same international treaty (the Berne convention). As I understand it, fair use cannot *ever* be a candidate in this situation: fair use it about allowing scholarly citation, commentary and learning. Dynamic linking is none of these things. Fair use is covered in the Copyright Myths FAQ. Here's an excerpt: The fair use exemption to copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay to log onto the online services with the story or buy a copy of the paper? The former is probably fair use, the latter probably aren't. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: ITP: pine (?)
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 12:30:39PM +0100, Piotr Roszatycki wrote: This licence doesn't forbid to redistribute modified binaries. This is irrelevant. The important thing is that it does not explicitly allow redistribution of modified binaries. This release could be modified release, IMHO. If you have to guess, always guess the worst. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:14:05PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: (d)nase-a60 includes Revised Report on Algol 60, which has no right to modify. And thus belongs in non-free for identical reasons to what I said above. In that case, if you file a bug, I'd rather drop the doc than move the package to non-free. It would be a shame. Considering the non-consensus we have here, I'd probably just close the bug as a non-bug, though. If we get a real consensus here, I'll follow it. I've already made the upload which - if approved by ftpmasters - will move haskell-doc to main, based on input I got on IRC. (Actually, it seems upstream will change the license for the specs but I don't know if this comes soon enough for potato. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: proposed new /usr/share/doc/apt/copyright
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 11:21:22PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote: Works using apt may link against the GUI library libqt, copyright by Troll Tech AS, Norway, provided that: 1. The version of libqt is under the terms of the Q Public License, ... 2. The source code of the version of libqt used is Are these point 1 and 2 conjunctive or disjunctive (ie. are they ANDed or ORred)? This should IMHO be clearly specified in the license. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Artistic BSD+ad
Is it okay to link an application which is licensed under the Artistic license with a library which is licensed under the BSD license (partially with and partially without the ad clause)? I just noticed that NetBSD libedit has compatibility wrappers for GNU readline, and I'd like to link Hugs against it ;-) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: Artistic BSD+ad
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 12:42:50PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Are these the library wrappers Tom Christianson was yelling about so loudly on gnu.misc.discuss this summer? No. i.e. does Hugs eventually link against GNU readline? Of course not. It would link against a port of BSD Editline, which contains no GNU code. [BTW, I just got a patch against Rich Saltz's Editline (a totally different beast, designed to be a non-GNU cheap replacement for readline) which makes it policy-compliant. I'm probably going to use it instead, as BSD Editline is nontrivial to port.] -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: LPPL again
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:35:33AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: I don't know much about LaTeX, but the tetex stuff I have installed on my system is GPLed. Not true. teTeX contains some GPL'd components, but it *also* contains LaTeX. If we're talking about the same tetex then the LPPL has no jurisdiction there.. Wrong. teTeX is a software distribution like Debian. Does the GPL not have any jurisdiction in Debian if we chose some other license? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% ... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ... (Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
Re: LPPL again
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:50:44PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: I understand ; afaik there is no tetex-src package. You _could_ check it yourself: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:09:26]:~/cvs/webwml/english/Bugs$ grep-available -PX tetex-src Package: tetex-src Priority: extra Section: tex Installed-Size: 46690 Maintainer: Christoph Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Architecture: all Version: 0.9.990326-1 Filename: dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/tex/tetex-src_0.9.990326-1.deb Size: 13946472 MD5sum: 1d40d1fe9b5c9a7f30f692d95ae57d44 Description: teTeX texmf source files This is teTeX (version 0.9), a TeX distribution for UNIX compatible systems. . Source files for the texmf tree of the Debian teTeX distribution. They are only here to meet the copyright requirements of some tex packages. . You don't need to install them to have a running TeX system. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:21:05]:~/cvs/webwml/english/Bugs$ -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% ... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ... (Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
Re: Forking and relicensing issues (different)
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 04:43:13PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: I was reacting to someone who seemed to think that use implies deriviation. Then we don't read messages the same way. Anyway, use is expressedly not governed by the GPL. The problem is whether something is use or derivation... -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho A7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** URL:http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ ** The FAQ is your friend. Trust the FAQ.
Re: Forking and relicensing issues (different)
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 06:18:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Would that mean that a program that happens to run only under Linux 2.2.x is a modification of Linux and so MUST be GPL'ed? No. Linux is not GPL. It's GPL + a special exception (or clarification, if you will) that linking against the syscalls is considered use and not derivation. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho A7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** URL:http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ ** The FAQ is your friend. Trust the FAQ.
Re: Modification of reference material
On Thu, Apr 15, 1999 at 11:33:13AM +, Arnoud 'Galactus' Engelfriet wrote: Similarly, the TeX typesetting program is public domain, but may only be distributed as TeX if the program passes a certain test. Are these licenses considered free? Name change requirement is OK. Certainly Mozilla and TeX are free software (although I personally would tell people not to use either license, but that's just me). BTW, TeX is not in the public domain. Its license is quite hard to decipher, although it is generally considered free. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho A7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** URL:http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ ** The FAQ is your friend. Trust the FAQ.
mmorph license ok?
I assume this is DFSG-free. - ajk mmorph, MULTEXT morphology tool Copyright (c) 1994,1995 ISSCO/SUISSETRA, Geneva, Switzerland Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and data with its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name of ISSCO not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software and data without specific, written prior permission. ISSCO makes no representations about the suitability of this software and data for any purpose. It is provided as is without express or implied warranty. ISSCO disclaims all warranties with regard to this software and data, including all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, in no event shall ISSCO be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever, action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this software. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Good Times are back again! http://www.iki.fi/gaia/zangelding/
Re: License query for mrouted
On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:37:25PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote: At the time LICENSEE provides a copy of a derivative version of the Program to a third party, LICENSEE shall provide STANFORD with one copy of the source code of the derivative version at no charge to STANFORD. This looks like a kind of postcardware. Are we really obligated to send Stanford thousands of copies of the source? If yes, then we cannot distribute the program. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho A7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** URL:http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ ** The FAQ is your friend. Trust the FAQ.
Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses
On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 08:46:09AM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote: A note on clause 4 (about OROmatcher, a regular expression package for Java), which only applies to JPython. I expect that this may be a show-stopper for Debian, It is, for the main distribution. The only thing that matters for the non-free distribution is that the software must be distributable over FTP, however. Let me know if this license works for Debian, and if not, what problems it has. Otherwise it looks OK to me. But the language is hard to read, at least to a non-lawyer whose native language is not English, like me; for example, it took several passes for me to even parse the first clause. Antti-Juhani -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% EMACS, n.: Emacs May Allow Customised Screwups (unknown origin)
Re: tex4ht - Debian package (fwd)
** Please trim the recipient list as appropriate. ** On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 04:35:44PM +, Andrew Gray wrote: Basically, he would like a licence like that for the Knuth TeX programs themselves. Basically, the Knuth TeX programs are in public domain, but the name is trademarked. tex4ht.c1999-01-26-20-02 Copyright (C) 1996--99 Eitan M. Gurari 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. However, if you modify this program, you must also modify its signature or its name. Changes to the signature can be introduced with a directive of the form #define PLATFORM signature This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~gurari/TeX4ht/mn.html It looks OK to me. However, license issues belong to debian-legal, not debian-mentors, so I'm crossposting. Antti-Juhani -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho A7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** URL:http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ ** The FAQ is your friend. Trust the FAQ.
