Re: package changing their license to get into main (sandboxgamemaker)
Francesco Poli wrote: 2. You must read and abide by the zlib/libpng licenses located in /src which pertains to the source code of Platinum Arts Sandbox Free 3D Game Maker, Moviecube and the Cube 2 source code which the project is based on. You can find the licenses in sandbox_src_license.txt, moviecube_license, and Cube_2_enginelicense.txt This is the strange condition 2 that makes this license become a sort of pointer-license: if I understand correctly, it states that I must read the zlib license and abide by it for the source of Sandbox, Moviecube and Cube 2. Requiring that I *read* the zlib license is weird and problematic: do I have to read it again *each* time I use Sandbox?!? What if I am already familiar with the zlib license and don't need to re-read it in order to abide by it?!? Requiring, *in the license for Sandbox*, that I abide by the zlib license for the source of Sandbox seems to be weird, too: if Sandbox is released under the zlib license, then the pointer-license should be dropped entirely; if Sandbox is not released under the zlib license, then condition 2 seems to be false... I reiterate the recommendation to drop the entire pointer-license, in favor of simply releasing Sandbox under the terms of the zlib license. *Maybe* what they really meant (which is not clear at all) is that you must follow the zlib and libpng licenses for the zlib and libpng libraries that they use or have as embedded copies in their source code, but they don't apply to the actual gamemaker's code. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/iced7r$rg...@dough.gmane.org
Re: ESDC-EAD: Direito Penal Ambiental e Econômico
noticias-esd...@esdc.com.br wrote: EAD - Fundamentos Constitucionais do Direito Penal Ambiental e Econômico [...] Is this spam or what the hell? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
MJ Ray wrote: I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and it is getting us away from the original thread topic. How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one. After all, if one clause is DFSG-incompatible, the file is DFSG- incompatible. That's enough to take action (remove the file, contact upstream to remove the file, contact AMD to change header license, move package to non-free, etc); it's irrelevant whether the other clauses are compatible or not. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Marco d'Itri wrote: nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote: How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one. As explained, the license does not really matter since function definitions usually are not subject to copyright. [function definitions are the actual code, so I'll assume you meant declarations] When was that said? I couldn't find anyone in this thread saying declarations aren't subject to copyright. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Fernando C. Estrada wrote: The BOINC source code were debianized to packages that meet the DFSG, and the Copyright include only compatible licenses (discarding all the files that don't comply with the DFSG from the Debian packages). Now, the doubt is in the lib/cal.h file, because includes the license pasted at the end of this message. Note that cal.h is a header file containing only function declarations and no actual code (although I guess what counts as 'actual code' is debatable). The matching function definitions are in a proprietary library that the BOINC client loads at runtime with dlopen/dlsym. Dynamically linking to a proprietary library like that is OK for BOINC since it is licensed under the LGPL, but I don't know whether it's OK for Debian. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
Francesco Poli wrote: Where is this proprietary library distributed? In AMD website. If the user downloads it and installs it, BOINC will use it, and will be able to detect your ATI cards. In order to use the proprietary library, it uses the function declarations in the cal.h header distributed with the package. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
POV-Ray 3.7 beta in experimental, but non-redistributable
POV-Ray 3.7 beta is available from povray.org as compiled binaries for Microsoft Windows, and as source code tarballs. It's the first time the developers make source code available during beta development (usually there were only binaries available until the final release). However, the betas still have a different license from the one used in final releases; it's the standard POV-Ray license plus several *strict* restrictions specific to betas. Today I found that POV-Ray 3.7 is packaged in experimental: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/povray It's also patched to disable the beta expiration: http://patch- tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/povray/1:3.7.0~beta29-1/80_beta.diff This seems to violate the beta license in *every possible way*. Here are the restrictions, taken from one of the source files from the upstream source tarball: * NOTICE * * This file is part of a BETA-TEST version of POV-Ray version 3.7. It is not * final code. Use of this source file is governed by both the standard POV-Ray * licences referred to in the copyright header block above this notice, and the * following additional restrictions numbered 1 through 4 below: * * 1. This source file may not be re-distributed without the written permission * of Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. * * 2. This notice may not be altered or removed. * * 3. Binaries generated from this source file by individuals for their own * personal use may not be re-distributed without the written permission * of Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. Such personal-use binaries * are not required to have a timeout, and thus permission is granted in * these circumstances only to disable the timeout code contained within * the beta software. * * 4. Binaries generated from this source file for use within an organizational * unit (such as, but not limited to, a company or university) may not be * distributed beyond the local organizational unit in which they were made, * unless written permission is obtained from Persistence of Vision Raytracer * Pty. Ltd. Additionally, the timeout code implemented within the beta may * not be disabled or otherwise bypassed in any manner. The Debian package is redistributing entire source code of POV-Ray 3.7, available through packages.debian.org website and apt-get source -texperimental povray. This violates clause 1. The extra license restrictions for 3.7 betas are not present in /usr/share/doc/povray, which *I think* may violate clause 2. The Debian package disables the beta timeout code, which is only allowed for personal use (according to clause 3), not for wider distribution. In addition, I don't think a Linux distribution counts as an organizational unit as mentioned in clause 4; therefore Debian wouldn't be allowed to redistribute 3.7 betas at all. I have asked in POV-Ray newsgroups about this today, but got no answer yet (not like I expected an answer so fast there). I will forward this message to povray.beta-test. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: POV-Ray 3.7 beta in experimental, but non-redistributable
Charles Plessy wrote: Dear Nicolas, indeed, the Debian copyright file of the povray does not mention written permissions from Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. I think that this is enough to open a Serious bug on the Debian povray package (version 3.7.0~beta29-1). If the povray package maintainers get the permission to distribute and disable the timeout, or simply forgot to mention that they already got it, they can close the bug with an upload that corrects the Debian copyright file, and otherwise the bug can be reassigned to ftp.debian.org as a request for removal. Have a nice day, Thanks for your reply. I have filed #563344. -- Nicolas (I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc me on replies; it makes me get one message on my newsreader and another on email.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
