Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: (Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s) As you say you need the prefered form of _modification_, which means that if we change things, we are not allowed to obfuscate it. I can not see anything that enfoce the original author to actually do such obfuscation. No, the preferred form *for* modification. The only requirement on the original author (as I can determine) is that you get source code for it, not that it is in preferred form for making modification. That's perfectly acceptable. Upstream can do whatever they want. However, if upstream do not provide the preferred form for modification (ie, the unobfuscated version), Debian can not distribute it under the terms of the GPL. That's not an issue in this case, since X is not a GPLed application. Debian can distribute the obfuscated code entirely legally, without violating any licenses. The issue is whether source in the DFSG refers to the GPL's definition (the preferred form for modification) or not. An alternative interpretation could be a form amenable to modification by people sufficiently familiar with the work. If people define source as the preferred form for modifications in all cases, then there's no place for deliberately obfuscated code in Debian. There's also arguably no place for works that are only available as JPEGs, any flattened image formats, mp3s, PDFs and so on. Right now there doesn't seem to be a strong opinion in the project about that, but I expect it's a discussion that needs to be had. (For anyone doubting that the nvidia code is deliberately obfuscated - http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/vga256/drivers/nv/Attic/nv4driver.c.diff?r1=1.1.2.3r2=1.1.2.4hideattic=0only_with_tag=xf-3_3_3 ought to make it pretty clear) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am 2006-08-24 17:37:06, schrieb Matthew Garrett: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence? (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich) It hasn't. Which mean HE or Canotix can be sued? I do find such things not realy funny... I think you mean Canonical, but given that Ubuntu doesn't contain any CSS code /anyway/, I don't think it's a problem. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence? (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich) It hasn't. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software patents and Debian
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why we have main/Non-US? 1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days. 2) In order to avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was illegal to do so, the code was placed on a server outside the US. It was still legal to use this software in the US. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software patents and Debian
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we should avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was illegal to do so, and put the code on a server outside the US, IMO, we should avoid distribute patented software when it was illegal to do so, and place the code on a server outside the US. You'd need a server in a jurisdiction without any patent law. This issue is not just limited to the US. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software patents and Debian
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:43:51AM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote: Matthew Garrett wrote: Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. That's an interesting assertion, which contradicts current behaviour. IMO, we should put these softwares in Non-US/Main. I don't think it's right to put them in main. I've got absolutely no idea how that would solve any of the problems at all. The US is hardly the only jurisdiction with the potential for hostile patent suits. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. If it's important that Chinese Dissidents be able to release software without putting their name all over it or telling anyone about it, it would seem logical for them to be able to ensure that they be able to demand people remove any credits that they may have accidently left on a piece of software. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that stating This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by James O. Hacker is an accurate credit, as long as it's true. Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to fail DFSG#3. It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The venue could make significant difference here, because the licensor could be terribly wrong in one jurisdiction and correct in another. That's a problem with choice of law, not choice of venue. Furthermore you can hadly measure whether the licensor is evil or not, and can not just rely on his good faith. And that's an argument in favour of not shipping any software at all. This kind of 'moving sands' via patch clauses are quite similar to GFDL's invariant sections which Debian considers non-free. They're about as similar to invariant sections as I am. Keeping the variable sections of a license separate and easy to locate is useful - look at the vast number of slightly different versions of the 4-clause BSD, and how as a result there's a need to check that it's actually the same license in all cases rather than having been subtly modified. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]
Marcel Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor trying to get some advantage, such as being able to use their usual legal team against a smaller defendant and stopping that defendant being judged by their own state's people when appropriate. As you note, it isn't usual for free software licences to specify venue, as there are other agreements which do that. Why is choice of venue needed? (Small copyright holder with limited resources, large company with no business presence in copyright holder's state, copyright violation, but I think we've had this conversation before) The particular choice of Santa Clara County, California for opensolaris scares me - after all, it's where Adobe of freesklyarov.org fame chooses as venue for its licence disputes. It's where Sun are based, so it's hardly surprising. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An evil author (as copyright holder) despite his limited resources could cause lots of damage to a large company which has never violated his copyrights. This is even more scary. Someone of sufficient evilness can do that whether they're acting within a license or not. They're already dishonest - who's going to stop them lying about the license contents? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential disbarment. These go away if the license explicitly permits one side to be evil in this way. And choice of venue makes absolutely no difference here. Either the licensor is evil (in which case they'll end up losing and having to pay damages, providing that the licensee has had sufficient money to pay for the entire costs of the case) - or the licensor is correct in their lawsuit, in which case choice of venue merely lets them defend themselves more sensibly. Discriminating against choice of venue has no significant cost to evil licensors, but hurts wronged licensors. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license statement. Freedom of software should also apply to people who don't agree with US export laws. I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I completely disagree with it Please quote the section of the license that states that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. LICENSEE AGREES THAT LICENSE VIOLATION MAY RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION would hardly be controversial. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-free license?
Brian Elliott Finley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm working on packaging a some software that uses this license. Is this an acceptable license from a debian perspective? Looks like 3-clause BSD, which is absolutely fine. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license statement. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open CASCADE Technology Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problematic kind of trademark clauses is the one that says you lose your _copyright_ license if you use our trademark in ways we're not happy with. Why is that any more problematic than the 3-clause BSD license? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open CASCADE Technology Public License
Macallister Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problematic kind of trademark clauses is the one that says you lose your _copyright_ license if you use our trademark in ways we're not happy with. Why is that any more problematic than the 3-clause BSD license? It's about arbitrary marks, not someone's name. Why do you think they are comparable? If the objection is It's a breach of the copyright license to break the law in this specific manner, then they're directly comparable. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who can make binding legal agreements
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given the above link point to your post, you can only blame yourself for its content. It's not strictly necessary to bitch about Anthony's actions at every opportunity. If you disagree with his course of actions, perhaps dropping him a private mail discussing your concerns would work better? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list? I can tell you from experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while. This is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a solution. Let's go back to Walter's original text: What is key for Debian is for clarifications to go into the license, not the FAQ. I am spectacularly unimpressed with the arguments I have seen about estoppel etc. It makes the license lawyerbait. Just fix the license. Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check official db.debian.org or to ask the sender to confirm that statement with gpg signed message and to compare that against the official debian-keyring then he (addresee) will ask for help. The context is a representative of Sun emailing debian-legal, and someone appearing to speak on behalf of Debian emailing him back. The DPL chose to clarify that Walter was not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian, presumably because he felt that there had been potential for confusion. Does that seem unreasonable? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on top of that. As already discussed elsewhere: how do you feel about the 3rd clause of the 3-clause BSD license? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. That's not even remotely relevant to the points he makes. The identity of the person that makes the arguments isn't relevant. The arguments are. How about reading what Anthony actually replied to? Mike demanded that the DPL perform certain actions. Suggesting that somebody actually get involved in Debian before making demands of its leadership isn't unreasonable. Alternatively, it could be phrased as a request. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His message was polite, and didn't seem like a demand (despite the use of the word cabal). The Too many excuses. All inadequate bit was polite? His request was quite reasonable, and I heartily agree with it. His message also was much more than that, which aj totally dismissed. The post was phrased in an unnecessarily hostile manner. There should be no expectation for people to usefully respond to that sort of thing. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're not? You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch clauses? If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in the list archives. No, you've described why they cause practical inconvenience. You haven't described why everyone else ever was wrong. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Michio Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually? (Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.) Nngh. Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for changing views at the drop of a hat. For example, changing position and letting the project sell stuff near the end of http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00091.html even though saying we used to say that we wouldn't compete with debian retailers, but now we've decided that we will looks astonishingly bad. You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that changing our minds on things is bad. I'm saying that diverging from the rest of the community for no good reason looks bad. It's hardly as if patch clauses were badly understood when the DFSG were written. There's no way you can claim Oh, they didn't know what they were talking about. The people who wrote this document considered the issue and decided that the practical implications were not sufficiently offensive to avoid describing them as free. Since then, the practical freedoms provided by patch clauses have increased. Altering the DFSG would be a clear redefinition of our stance on freedom, and there would be no way that anyone could argue that it was in any way in line with community consensus. Do I think that would look bad? Yes, I do. The DFSG should reflect reality, like our website should do. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] My preferred name is you -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a wide difference. The GPLv3 is explicitly making a statement: these restrictions are acceptable. Permissive licenses merely say I don't care. It implies that the FSF considers such restrictions free, and either hasn't considered, or doesn't care, about the legitimate applications that it implicitly prohibits. The fact that they claim the Affero license is free didn't suggest that to you already? (On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...) Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is insufficiently complicated. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch clauses. There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much of that don't want my pet package declared non-free agenda going on, and it seems like an obviously unreasonable hurdle to reuse. It seems like a compromise whose time has passed. I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't looks astonishingly bad? So the real reason not to fix it is to save face by not admitting mistakes. I expected better from Debian; don't ask me why. What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're not? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:08:22AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: That's odd. The description of -legal is Copyright, licensing and patent issues, whereas -project is Discussions about non-technical issues in the project. Handwaving. Until you anti-freedom advocates started your crap, these discussions have always happened on -legal - and even now, nearly all the meaningful ones happen here. The GFDL and associated documentation issues, the non-free firmware problem, etc. - here's where it gets worked out. Mostly what happens on other lists is people bitching that they don't like the answer, and saying change it (classical PHB syndrome). Then they've always happened in the wrong place. Let's learn from previous mistakes rather than continue perpetuating them? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, if not d-legal, then at least d-project. Indeed - I think discussion what what the DFSG /should/ mean (such as whether source code is required for certain items) is a project wide decision rather than a legal one. (The thread in question is on -project, so I think it seems reasonable enough) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:06:44AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Indeed - I think discussion what what the DFSG /should/ mean (such as whether source code is required for certain items) is a project wide decision rather than a legal one. And the members of the project who have an interest in such matters are, by definition, the ones that subscribe to -legal. No, that's just plainly untrue. (You can attempt to redefine it as Only people subscribed to -legal are interested in how the DFSG should be applied, but that just means that your definition of interested in how the DFSG should be applied is uninteresting) No matter how much you try to set them up in opposition to each other, the Debian mailing lists are divided by *topic*, nothing more. Matters relating to the DFSG are quite clearly on-topic for -legal, rather than one of the catch-all lists. That's odd. The description of -legal is Copyright, licensing and patent issues, whereas -project is Discussions about non-technical issues in the project. Deciding whether the DFSG should apply to a particular catagory of bitstreams is clearly not a matter of copyright, licensing or patents. It /is/, however, a non-technical issue that applies to the project. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no idea why -legal isn't in the loop, but I figured if I gave y'all a heads up, you would be soon enough. Because it's -legal's job to interpret licenses, not the DFSG? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trolltech GPL violation?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 23:08:03 + Matthew Garrett wrote: [...] While I won't actually try to use this as an argument of fact, the majority of people I've spoken to about this don't feel happy about declaring the QPL non-free. I'm not happy either. Still, I declare the QPL non-free, because I actually think it's non-free. When I say not happy, I mean not convinced that it's non-free rather than declaring it non-free makes them sad. And yes, I've brought up the issues that the QPL has. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trolltech GPL violation?
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. The source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed with the compiler, kernel and so on -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trolltech GPL violation?
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the Fortunately, most people disagree. The lurkers support me in email While I won't actually try to use this as an argument of fact, the majority of people I've spoken to about this don't feel happy about declaring the QPL non-free. It's also worth noting that historically we've tended to agree with the FSF over whether a software license is free or not. The fact that this has started to change recently suggests that somebody's opinion is changing. (The fact that the FSF declared the QPL a free software license really quite a long time ago may offer some insight into who's changing here) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QPL and non-free
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is. Whatever gave you the idea? The DFSG are supposed to define what _Debian_ means by free in the social contract. The FSF is over there. At no point during the DFSG discussion does anyone seem to suggest that we're redefining free software. Rather, we're making it clear what aspects of freedom we care about. It's supposed to lead to pretty much the same end result. If the DFSG are wildly divergent from the FSF's viewpoint, we need to figure out how and why. Err, that's simple. We are not the BORG. We have different views -- just look at us hosting non-free software, which made the FSF unable to recommend us. And the GFDL, which we call non-free. Different bodies. Different goals. Different optinons. Different views. Gee, I would be surprise if our definition of free software was identical, actually. The GFDL is a red herring. The FSF don't try to claim it's a free software license. Having two different definitions of free software does nothing to help the community. Diversity of opinions harms the community? How fragile it must be, in your view. Diversity of opinions hurts the members of the community who find that a license they thought was free isn't by our standards. I'm not sure who it actually benefits. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: At no point during the DFSG discussion does anyone seem to suggest that we're redefining free software. Rather, we're making it clear what aspects of freedom we care about. It's supposed to lead to pretty much the same end result. Why do you think it is supposed to lead to nearly the same end result? Because that's the impression I get from reading the discussion that led to them being written. The GFDL is a red herring. The FSF don't try to claim it's a free software license. The FSF distinguishes between software and documentation, and Debian refuses to. This makes the FSF's freeness claims about the GFDL relevant. I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that the GFDL is a free software license. Diversity of opinions hurts the members of the community who find that a license they thought was free isn't by our standards. I'm not sure who it actually benefits. Members of the community will have that problem anyway, since different people have both different values and different interpretations of fact. Examples include the Apache 2 license GPL compatibility question, the OpenSSL GPL incompatibility, the distinction between free software and OSI's open source definition, and so fourt. None of these cases involve two different definitions of an existing term. If we say The QPL is not a free software license while the FSF are saying The QPL is a (poor quality) free software license, how is that not going to result in unhappiness? The Apache foundation don't claim that you should treat their license as GPL compatible. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html . -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that the GFDL is a free software license. They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not harp over the ambiguous usage of software rather than its subset free software? I cannot imagine this conversation being any more productive than that one. We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear that they don't consider the two to be the same catagory for a very long time. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear that they don't consider the two to be the same catagory for a very long time. You accept that different people mean different things when they say software. Why is it a problem when the same applies to free software? The fact that different people mean different things when they say software was enough for us to stop using the word software where the distinction was important. The logical follow-on is that we should either get people to agree on what free software means or stop using the phrase free software where the distinction is important. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: The fact that different people mean different things when they say software was enough for us to stop using the word software where the distinction was important. The logical follow-on is that we should either get people to agree on what free software means or stop using the phrase free software where the distinction is important. Sure. Why not? When I want to talk about Debian's definition of software freedom, I try to use a specific term like DFSG-free. Debian sells itself as a free software distribution. While changing that would solve the problem, it would also change people's perception of what Debian is. Free softwsare not free enough for Debian isn't a Slashdot headline I'm especially enthusiastic on seeing. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QPL and non-free
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it's at least one of the reasons both licenses are considered non-free. (Despite us still shipping a moderately large body of work under both in main) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QPL and non-free
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness guidelines. But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is. If the DFSG are wildly divergent from the FSF's viewpoint, we need to figure out how and why. Having two different definitions of free software does nothing to help the community. Argh, sorry. This should have been on -legal -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also applies to the GNU Freedoms. You think wrong. DFSG 1 does not require any piece of software to allow commercial sale as an independent component. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the Additional Terms in Exhibit B. The original Mozilla Public License 1.1 can be found at: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html; if some debian-legal gurus could take a look at the licence and tell me if i could make the ITP without any problems regarding the licence issue. Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't call it sugarcrm, so you'd have to rename it if producing a package. There's also a requirement that you include a logo and copyright notice on all output. This is similar in some ways to 2(c) of the GPL - it's a restriction on modification, but I'm not sure if it would be considered an excessively onerous one. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't call it The code under it in the main archive is there under the claim that it's currently in the process of being dual-licensed under the GPL, so it should be very likely. No, that's not even roughly true. Other packages that are MPLed include: mozilla-stumbleupon nqc tdom brickos openmcu mozilla-ldapsdk Portions of nail bonsai bugzilla pilot-syncmal t38modem malsync Possibly parts of firebird (no, not the Mozilla project) libsaxon-java zope-rdfgrabber lnpd This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please stop this The only code under the MPL is Mozilla argument? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Sorry, hilariously badly misaimed. Back to -legal with this. Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please stop this The only code under the MPL is Mozilla argument? It's not an argument--nobody is claiming that a license is free or non- free based on whether or not the license is being used. (I'm a bit disappointed that you're essentially saying even if this license is non-free, you can probably get away with it anyway, though.) The ultimate decision over whether a license is free or not rests with the FTP masters. They can be overruled by a general resolution. The presence of code under the MPL in the main section of the archive suggests (but does not confirm) that the people who actually make the decision believe it to conform to the DFSG. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux Documentation Project License (LDPL) v2.0
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The modified version must be labeled as such. Seems ok. 2. The person making the modifications must be identified. Fails the dissident test, but there's some level of disagreement over whether that matters. 3. Acknowledgement of the original author must be retained. No problem. 4. The location of the original unmodified document be identified. I don't think this ought to be a problem. 5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without t= he original author's (or authors') permission. That's fine. The others are requests rather than requirements, so there's no problem there. In summary - I'd be surprised if anyone filed RC bugs against stuff under this license. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the copyright holder to sue users. The cost is particularly aggravated by the fact that we have already seen frivolous claims on the part of copyright owners. We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is to stop distributing software, should we do so? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is to stop distributing software, should we do so? I do not propose we do anything to stop frivolous lawsuits. I suggest you reread the paragraph you quoted instead of just the last sentence. But downloading a piece of software from Debian opens me up to the possibility of frivolous lawsuits from the copyright holder, something that did not occur before. How is that not a cost? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: But downloading a piece of software from Debian opens me up to the possibility of frivolous lawsuits from the copyright holder, something that did not occur before. How is that not a cost? Why did it not exist before? Your assumption seems to be a sociopathic copyright owner. I think that is an inappropriate assumption, but sociopaths and frivolous lawsuits are seldom rational. Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the suit could claim that their local venue had jurisdiction over me, even if this isn't actually the case. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the suit could claim that their local venue had jurisdiction over me, even if this isn't actually the case. The difference is that if you have accepted a choice-of-venue license, the sociopath can present his local venue with proof that it has jurisdisction. That makes a difference, however much you try to deny it. If it's a frivolous case, it makes no difference. You'll have to turn up to either: (a) debunk the claim that there is jurisdiction, or (b) debunk the frivolous claim which will both impose the same cost. (Please don't Cc me.) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissident test (was re: CDDL)
Merritt Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In April 2005, Shi Tao was imprisoned for 10 years for providing state secrets to foreign entities, partly because the local police traced his email address back to him (source Reporters Sans Frontiers). In that case, it was news of a censorship order, but why not news of a security vulnerability that state agents are exploiting? Anonymity has benefits for freedom. He was discriminated against by his government, not by any sort of software license. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] My preferred name is you -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are real-world examples that choice-of-venue clauses could be more dangerous than without them. I'm not sure is DFSG can catch these challenges, but it certainly should not be read as glossary or as a bullet list with do's and dont's. The DFSG define what we consider free and what we consider non-free. If you believe that there's an issue that should prevent distribution of something, then say so - there are various pieces of DFSG software we fail to distribute because of other legal issues (primarily patent problems). But don't suggest that it's any sort of freeness issue. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [debian-ntp] Bug#328200: Problems with ntp
Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The file util/ansi2knr.c is also GPL. I'm pretty sure it's unused, but an easy reference in debian/copyright would cover it. This may be a problem if it is used, as: There are several files that are BSD with advertising clause, including libntp/memmove.c, libntp/mktime.c, libntp/random.c, libntp/strerror.c, libntp/strstr.c, ntpd/refclock_jupiter.c, and ntpd/refclock_mx4200.c. These should be referenced in debian/copyright. BSD with advertising isn't GPL compatible. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely protect people from being sued to begin with. Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from being sued in an arbitrary country*. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saying that choice of venue is free seems no different than saying You agree to not use this software in connection with the production of nuclear energy or You agree to not use this software for any military purpose is free -- all are waivers of a course of action that the user has in the absence of that license. After all, just like choice of venue, those only have any effect in the realm of litigation! No. Those are restrictions on use, which are explicitly forbidden in DFSG 6 (The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.). Choice of venue is not, and so isn't. That's a pretty obvious difference. These facts are irrelevant. Users have the freedom to install (or not install) database software with a license that prohibits them from publishing benchmark results. That restriction still makes such software ineligible as for inclusion in Debian. We cannot protect people from being sued, but we can protect people from waiving their normal statutory rights. When there's no conflict between that waiving and the user's ability to engage in the four essential freedoms, then why not? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, AFAICT. The DFSG are guidelines to determine whether a *right-holder* gives enough permissions to *licensees*, not whether *Debian* gives enough permissions to *right-holders*. That doesn't appear to be part of the social contract. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissident test
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed, propose an amendment to the SC. The GPL plainly discriminates against people who live in areas where software patents are enforced. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree *in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitrary lawsuits in exotic courts. Why does the exotic courts aspect actually make any significant difference? Are you honestly asserting that the cost of me travelling to, say, Finland is going to be large compared to the costs of hiring a lawyer to defend me? The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. By orders of magnitude. I'd like to see those figures. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. It may be that you do not have any concept of home court within the UK. That does not mean that the rest of the world's Debian users should be expected to suffer from that fault. If I'm living in the Scottish highlands, that doesn't help a great deal. I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ? How do we protect against that currently? We protect against leaving easy target by considering software non-free if its licence demands that you position yourself as an easier target that you would be without the license. Any license that imposes any restrictions on me leaves me an easier target than I would be without the license - it's much easier to find an excuse to sue someone over a piece of GPLed software than a piece of BSD licensed code. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange. That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. How do we protect against that currently? What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be possibly attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the smartest either... So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous lawsuits. That is not reality. The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs. Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless? I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers. You might as well just have released the code into the public domain. And, hence, discriminate against rich ones? We *should* discriminate against software whose authors wants the right to order all users and distributors to travel around the globe on their whim. Such harassment has nothing at all to do with software freedom. But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software license *does* have something to do with software freedom. There are always tradeoffs. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of jurisdiction, no harassment results. Eh? They can sue you in your jurisdiction. In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is unlikely to deter them. I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers. According to your argument, the GPL and BSD license must be pointless, because they don't contain any obnoxious choice-of-venue clauses. If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't enforce? But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software license *does* have something to do with software freedom. Not anything I can read in the DFSG. The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as discrimination against licensors without money? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held. Can you prove somehow that all of them around the globe are sane and wont be used for speculations ... If a license chooses a jurisdiction that is known to be insane then that specific case may be non-free. So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one? I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ? The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the fact that the licensor can make baseless challenges against the user. The ease with which they can do so varies to some degree, but for large evil companies the practical difference is going to be small. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is unlikely to deter them. The point is that the cost *for me* of defending myself is much more favourable. You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which isn't very realistic. If you want to redefine choice of venue as Discriminates against poor people who are competent to represent themselves legally, then I'd be more inclined to take it seriously. If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't enforce? In the free software world, the point of having a license is to *allow* others to use, share and extend your software. No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free themselves. If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into the public domain. The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as discrimination against licensors without money? That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something we consider at all. We can just observe that sufficiently many software authors *have* been willing to do so that we can put together a good free OS. There is no reason to start including software in our OS where the user only gets freedoms with this kind of strings attached. Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes it evil. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which isn't very realistic. No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is forced to defend oneself in an unknown legal system with a foreign language). And even if a lawyer proves necessary, standard insurance will usually cover his fees. But I'm bloody sure that a standard insurance policy will *not* cover my cost in cases where I have previously agreed to let myself be sued in a foreign country. My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary legal cases. In any case, Discriminates against poor people who have an insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home country but not elsewhere? That's beginning to sound a bit fringe. No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free themselves. In that order. Not at all. The strength of the copyleft in the GPL suggests that they're all treated with equal priority. If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into the public domain. Yes, but if you don't do the former, the latter has nothing to do with freedom anyway. Right. This sort of clause doesn't impair your ability to use, share or extend software except in the case of someone suing you, which *they can do anyway*. Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Yes, but the if you stick to using software from main, we will do our best to check that you have such-and-such rights part of it is a promise to the users. There are other parts of the social contract that make promises to other parts of the community. And what rights are we taking away from them? The right not to be sued? We don't provide them with that right in the first place. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. That does not change the fact that we would be going back on our promise to the users if we started including software that required them to subject themselves to that risking. What risk? I can already sue you in the UK, if I want. I could forge evidence that suggested that you'd agreed to that. I could expose you to the same costs without you ever having touched a piece of software that was under a choice of venue clause. How are we protecting our users from anything here? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote: Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes it evil. The diff is that you can not use GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or developers. Can you ? Do you risk your baseless adventure will be severely striken back in any sane countries ? Y/n If I'm willing to lie (and I'd have to be to be filing a baseless lawsuit), then yes, I can use the GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or developers. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary legal cases. In any case, Discriminates against poor people who have an insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home country but not elsewhere? That's beginning to sound a bit fringe. It is considerably less fringe than Choice of venue is non-discriminatory because suitable lies allow anybody to sue you anywhere over anything even with no license and only the cost changes if you have to defend yourself in the other guy's home court because of a software license. I'd disagree, but I think that's a matter of opinion. As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to what the license imposes on or requires from users. What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that can't actually be exercised in life? There is no freedom not to be sued, so it's impossible for a license to contravene that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that can't actually be exercised in life? There is no freedom not to be sued, so it's impossible for a license to contravene that. There are the DFSG freedoms to not have to pay a fee and to not be discriminated against, and licenses can contravene those. Even though a sociopath can impose costs on an arbitrary person, we should not treat being vicimized by a sociopath as the baseline for freedom. Right, but the cost being suggested only appears when someone is sued frivilously (I'm assuming that we don't think that the freedom to contravene a license without being sued is something to worry about...), which approximates sociopathic behaviour. What practical difference does a choice of venue clause make to the user? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fresh review of: CDDL
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right? not according to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html Someone should really file a removal request against Mozilla. (No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fresh review of: CDDL
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: (No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet) I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually, regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree currently claim. Hmm. I'm sure that wasn't the situation a couple of months ago (last time I met one of the Mozilla guys) - will they be making an announcement? It's excellent news, regardless. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? Try people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by defaulting their court appearance. I think Debian agrees that poor people in general is a group that is protected by DFSG#5. Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against them? The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some of their rights to assure the rights of the commons. Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. In order to maintain the freedoms that copyleft-style licenses offer us, the licensor needs to be able to engage in lawsuits. The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. That's exactly why we (should) discriminate in favour of poor people. And, hence, discriminate against rich ones? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against them? Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to enter the scene... all over the world. But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ? How do we protect against that currently? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Jeff King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide exactly the same freedoms to our users. How is one of these free and the other non-free? Let's say I write a program in C code and compile it to assembly language, which I distribute. Somebody else writes an equivalent program directly in assembly language and distributes it. The distributed products contain the same amount of information about how they work. How is one of these free and the other non-free? Machine generated assembly is, in general, significantly less modifiable than hand-written assembly. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide exactly the same freedoms to our users. How is one of these free and the other non-free? One provided source, the other did not, and Debian considers having source fundamental to having a free program. Because it is, damnit? Take it a step further, and say we have two drivers: one written in heavily- optimized, uncommented assembly, and one written in C, compiled with optimizations and disassembled. They look pretty much the same; as you say, both provide the same freedoms to our users. Is disassembly output of a compiled program source to you? Is one free and the other non-free? If the ease of modification is equivalent in both cases, then I'd consider them to be equally free. If it's impractical for anyone to modify either, then I'd consider them non-free. Free software that provides no practical way of excercising its freedoms is not something that we should be supporting or holding up as an example to others. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matthew Garrett: How is one of these free and the other non-free? In the end, you have to take upstream intent into account. We already do this when interpreting licenses (at least in one direction), so I don't think this makes things worse. What difference does upstream intent make to the freedoms that our users receive? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about license compatibility
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and non-profit purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG #6. License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that forbids charging a fee for distribution is non-free, or at least bad policy. Certainly having a package that prohibits charging for distribution would prevent it from being on a Debian CD sold by one of the vendors. Based on the DFSG I'd have to point to #1 and #6... but both are kind of stretches. That aspect of license 2 isn't a problem - the DFSG don't require that people be able to charge for an item of software, merely the aggregate work. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Matthew Garrett: There's two main issues here. 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of modification? I don't believe so, We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees with you. We had a GR that stated that everything in main must include source code. That's not the same thing in the slightest. I think the last time the nv reference popped up, nobody could confirm that the source code has been deliberately obfuscated. It seems to be the real thing, but there is not enough public documentation to make any modifications which change the way the driver interacts with the hardware. Fine. I'll attempt to obtain confirmation that the obscure hex constants aren't the original and preferred form for modification. I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for instance.) If there's a povray dependency, the software cannot be included in main. Yes, but *WHY* do you think that? Christ. This isn't a difficult conceptual issue. I think that source has to be the preferred form of modification BECAUSE IT IS DAMNIT is not a convincing argument. If there existed reasonable ways of modifying Java bytecode to create new derivative works, then I'd have fewer qualms about shipping Java bytecode without a compiler. But there aren't, so I do. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Matthew Garrett: Yes, but *WHY* do you think that? It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files. Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive. Not all pregenerated files are difficult to modify. If there existed reasonable ways of modifying Java bytecode to create new derivative works, then I'd have fewer qualms about shipping Java bytecode without a compiler. But there aren't, so I do. From a technical point of view, Java bytecode is as good as uncommented source code. The Java-to-bytecode compilers are not very sophisticated. We're happy to accept uncommented source code in main. If Java bytecode is as good as that, it would imply that we're happy to accept it in main as well. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make it harder to understand. The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source. The latter is obfuscation, and is not source at all. Assuming what Florian says is accurate, Java bytecode is not source any more than C code with comments stripped, which would imply that Debian should not be accepting it as source. 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? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +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? Yes; as noble a goal as is writing good, well-commented code, that's not what the DFSG is about; it's about free software, including source code. If you write a well-commented program, and remove the comments in the copy you give me, you havn't given me the source at all. Why should Debian consider obfuscated code sufficient for DFSG#2? So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide exactly the same freedoms to our users. How is one of these free and the other non-free? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the definition of source [Was: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG]
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code. Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent with the functionality of the resulting work, What does that mean? That definition brings up two huge questions in itself: 1) What is a practical modification? A modification that can practically be carried out (trivial modification of a binary, rather more in-depth modification of non-obfuscated C source, that sort of thing). This is, obviously, something that would be applied on a case by case basis. 2) What does consistent with the functionality of the resulting work mean, anyway? If I have something that compiles into a picture, it is not reasonable to demand that I be able to modify it into a piece of executable code or a piece of music. However, it is vital that I be able to modify it into a different picture. Preferred form of modification doesn't always cut it - the author's preferred form of modification may not match anyone else on the planet's. This may be true, but if the author uses a specific form to modify the work, surely that's good enough for us?[1] It seems to me that any definition of source that does not include the form that the author actually uses to create the work is fundamentally flawed.[2] No. We don't ask for the freedom to modify because we think it's a kind of neat idea. We ask for the freedom to modify because we want people who receive the software to have the ability to create different works based upon it. If someone spends their life writing a kernel with a hex editor, I utterly reject the idea that the resulting work can be considered free software. It infringes the first of the FSF's four freedoms. But yes, in almost every case the author's preferred form of modification is going to be source. My assertion is that there are other forms that may also be source. A bitmap file containing the output from a 3D renderer is modifiable in a smaller number of ways than the scene and models that the renderer used, but the same is true of a driver in the absence of full documentation for the hardware. But again, if you believe that source means Preferred form of modification, I suggest that you file a bug asking for the nvidia driver to be removed from main. It quite plainly doesn't meet that standard. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really do prefer an unpractical form to modify a program, then it's still my source, and your definition is wrong. Why do you believe we require source code for everything in main? Because it's there? Or because we believe the recipients should be able to create derived works and learn how the software functions? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes source just isn't enough to figure out how a program (or hardware) works, lacking eg. hardware documentation; that's annoying, but it's still source. If I create a program with a hex editor, it's source, even if it doesn't serve Free Software's goals so well. This appears to be argument by assertion. Let's try this again: If you define source as the preferred form for modification, then http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/nv/nv_hw.c?rev=1.7view=markup is not source. I, on the other hand, believe that it is an acceptable (though borderline) form of source. Do you believe that this file should be part of Debian? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you back up a bit, first, and explain to me why that is not the preferred form for modification? It certainly looks like it to me. The preferred form for modification has all of the hex constants replaced with preprocessor defines that give you useful register names. It's fairly easy to show that this is the case - the code is plainly derived from NVidia's earlier (Xfree 3.3 era) driver and their open source SDK, which did have useful symbolic constant names. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That depends. I can see two scenarios: either they removed these constants from their own codebase, and that's how they now maintain it; or they pass the code through a filter to remove these constants before distributing it to the world. It's the latter. I believe there have been long flamewars about this code, which I havn't followed, and I don't have time to investigate this particular case in detail. (So, please be reasonable and not ask me to file bugs against packages, when doing so would commit myself to participating in another resurrected flamewar.) I'm asking you to be willing to accept the consequences of the opinion you hold, which (in this case) is inevitably going to be some large amount of irritation from other members of the project. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of source code. As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code. Until that time, the prefered form for modification seems to be the best definition of source code that we've got. [If you've got a better definition, by all means, propose it.] Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent with the functionality of the resulting work, or something along those lines. Yes, it's horribly fuzzy, but it's a horribly fuzzy area. Preferred form of modification doesn't always cut it - the author's preferred form of modification may not match anyone else on the planet's. Most people would regard the source for the nv driver as source code, even though there's a version of it that would be easier to modify. ITYM I would; it's not clear at all that most people would regard [it] as source. If you don't regard it as source, then you should file a bug requesting that it be removed from main. Despite the moderately involved thread we had on this in the past, nobody has done so yet. The classes of modification that can be performed upon a binary are highly limited. You can do anything you want to a binary. There are just things that are more difficult to do to binary files. Feel free to insert the word practically there. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
There's two main issues here. 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of modification? I don't believe so, and it's trivial to demonstrate that this isn't the current situation (see the nv driver in the X.org source tree, for instance). The DFSG require the availability of source code, and it seems reasonable to believe that anything that can be reasonably modified falls into that catagory. The graphics are available in a form that can be modified with free tools (the .xpm files). However, I know that other people disagree with my viewpoint on this. 2) Does a GPLed work have to include the preferred form of modification? Probably, and this may include the source code for the graphics. However, this may also be affected by the copyright holder's interpretation of the preferred form of modification and whether the GPLed code is a derived work of the graphics or not. On the other hand, if we accept my opinion on point (1), even if we need to include the pov-ray models we are not required to build from them in order to satisfy the DFSG. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of modification? IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of source code (it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2 mandates the inclusion of source code. I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of source code. Most people would regard the source for the nv driver as source code, even though there's a version of it that would be easier to modify. The DFSG require the availability of source code, and it seems reasonable to believe that anything that can be reasonably modified falls into that catagory. A binary executable can be reasonably modified with a hex editor (warez dudes do exactly that, in order to remove anti-copy or registration mechanisms from proprietary programs). The classes of modification that can be performed upon a binary are highly limited. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt]
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a distribution license - which is nice, because lots of RFCs aren't presently distributable at all - but it's not a license to modify, so that's not very useful. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-author-contributors-00.txt is more interesting. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#316487: debian-installer-manual: Missing copyright credit: Karsten M. Self for section C.4
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A past error does not prohibit the maintainer from excising any part of the work, at his discretion. You don't get to say you made a mistake in the past, so you're not allowed to remove my work now. Regardless of what we do in future versions, we're currently distributing material in violation of a copyright holder's license. Our choices are pretty much: a) Remove the material concerned from the installation guide in woody and sarge and get new versions uploaded to the archive. Apologise profusely. Potentially still be sued. b) Add attribution to the current version of the guide. The copyright holder has indicated that he'd let the matter drop in that case. c) Ignore the issue. We are *breaking the law*. The correct response is Oh, fuck, how can we fix this, not Stop complaining, it's against our policy to attribute people so we'll remove your material instead. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#316487: debian-installer-manual: Missing copyright credit: Karsten M. Self for section C.4
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:08:24PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: a) Remove the material concerned from the installation guide in woody and sarge and get new versions uploaded to the archive. Apologise profusely. Potentially still be sued. d) Add attribution to the installation guide in woody and sarge, and remove the material concerned from the archive for the next stable release. Sure. That's fairly equivalent to (a). This seems like If you remove my work from your current version, I'll sue you for your violation in the last version. I hope you can understand why I don't believe that arrangement is acceptable--it's no different than if you don't give me $100, I'll sue you for your violation in the last version. Yes. And? I don't see (c) happening; if it is, then Karsten's complaint was unclear (which shouldn't be surprising, given its length). Karsten is asserting that a) is doing the wrong thing, which is ridiculous. (c) /is/ happening. Karsten asked for attribution in 2003. And (a) /is/ doing the wrong thing - fixing the situation now doesn't excuse us from the guilt of having been violating his copyright for the past few years, especially when it was pointed out to us some time ago. We've been offered a reasonable way to settle the situation. Karsten's well within his rights to bring legal action, but instead he hasn't even threatened to put it on Slashdot. Which bit of We've been knowingly violating a license for over 2 years, and so we're the bad guys is unclear here? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#316487: debian-installer-manual: Missing copyright credit: Karsten M. Self for section C.4
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:58:07PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Yes. And? So you think it's acceptable to have a work in main, whose license is if you're Debian, you're never allowed to remove this work, or I'll sue you for an unrelated, already-fixed[1] past violation? I don't like throwing around overly loaded words, but I can't find any word short of extortion that accurately represents what this seems to be. No. In that case I'd say So sue us. Demanding that something never be removed is more unreasonable than rewriting something that we stole. Demanding acknowledgement isn't. Really. Listen to yourself. Are you honestly claiming that someone asking that we acknowledge his (involuntary) contribution to Debian is an unreasonable act? Are you honestly claiming that choosing to rewrite that text instead of giving due credit is not petty? Which bit of We've been knowingly violating a license for over 2 years, and so we're the bad guys is unclear here? Debian has offered to correct it, in a perfectly acceptable and legitimate manner. The manner in which we've offered to correct it is plainly not perfectly acceptable to Karsten, otherwise it would have been accepted. In my viewpoint, (a) is not wrong in any ethical or moral way (legally, I don't know and would prefer not to guess); coercing Debian maintainers to include a work in future releases against their will and judgement is. You think it's ethical to rewrite a perfectly good section of text rather than give appropriate credit to the original author? I think you're mad. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism. It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as noise or interesting discussions, depending on your point of view, mood, and temperature... but calling it masturbation is a bit rude, isn't it? Absolutely. It's not -legal's job to define the standards by which Debian determines freedom - it's legal's job to determine whether a specific license meets those. And this is what was done last summer with the QPL: it was determined that that specific license does *not* meet Debian freedom standards. No. No, it wasn't. The QPL was primarily determined to be non-free by a specific interpretation of the word fee (there's all sorts of other little issues, but basically nobody outside -legal cares about them). Nothing within Debian's social contract makes it clear that that's the intended interpretation, and as a result it's really up to the wider project to work out what that means. That's unfortunate. However, holding the discussion on -legal guarantees that we won't have the input of many developers. They may provide their input whenever they want to, but we cannot force them to do so. If they don't, maybe they do not care enough or they don't feel competent enough: so they delegate to debian-legal partecipants... What's wrong with that? The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place? Seriously, if you can find references that provide constitutional delegation of these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy about it all. Otherwise, -legal's opinions count no more than any other random set of people. They're generally useful, but they don't determine policy in themselves. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee. Well, this is non-free as upstream may have died, and if you can't distribute without distributing to upstream, it makes forking impractical too. If upstream is dead then you're fully knackered though. The clause in question is: If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. If upstream is dead, it's a bit difficult for them to request a copy. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consider the case where 'upstream' refers to several hundred distinct entities. It's the BSD advertising clause disaster all over again... I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a good license. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question about regexplorer
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue) is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last summer, IIRC). There's disagreement over that. Based on what has been stated and on http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/regexplorer/regexplorer_0= .1.6-12/regexplorer.copyright, Regexplorer seems to not comply with the DFSG. There's a moderate number of QPLed packages in the archive. I think a bug should be filed immediately... Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug#304316: section non-free/doc]
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record, so long as implementations of software freedom are copyright-based, documents from which fragments cannot legally be cut and pasted into the software they accompany do not belong in main. This applies most emphatically to the GFDL and to RFCs, inconvenient as that may be. When did license incompatibility become a freeness issue? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
