Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:42:32PM -0400, Michael Hanke wrote: Dear -legal, I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license that has the following clause: | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a | Contribution) and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data from | (collectively, the Software) constitutes acceptance of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or use | the Software. I had some concerns about the fact the users of such package would automatically agree to all conditions in that license even before they get to see it on there system. However, apparently this is not a problem for inclusion of such package into main -- this conclusion is based on the fact that the slicer package also uses exactly this style of license: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright I assume that this is OK, because the rest of the license only imposes DFSG-compliant constraints. Is that correct? If this were an *actual* EULA, where the user had to read and accept the license in order to gain access to the work, it would be a DFSG problem. In the case of slicer, nothing in the upstream license requires the distributor to impose such an EULA on the user, so no one has to accept the license as a condition of using the software in Debian and the default rights under copyright apply. As long as the license of your software is similar, where the EULA claims are trivially circumventable by the maintainer, this should also be fine. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- 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/20110430083335.ga1...@virgil.dodds.net
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
[I've set reply-to to me, because I'm not subscribed to this list] Karl Goetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand, but i guess we're heading down a tangent by discussing it. No, actually not. Could you include the actual licence terms for the package you are working on, perhaps with its itp bug number? There is not ITP yet, because it depends on the outcome of this discussion. The license terms in question are identical with slicer's -- except for the name of the software. Michael -- Michael Hanke http://mih.voxindeserto.de -- 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/20110428152046.GA11012@meiner
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:39:05 +1000 Karl Goetz wrote: On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400 Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote: Dear -legal, I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license that has the following clause: | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a | Contribution) and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data from | (collectively, the Software) constitutes acceptance of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or | use the Software. Does this mean if i disagree with a part of the contribution agreement that I'm not allowed to download it? It seems so. And I do *not* like it at all! [...] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright I assume that this is OK, because the rest of the license only imposes DFSG-compliant constraints. Is that correct? I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand [...] I agree. The Slicer license seems to be an overcomplicated attempt to reinvent a non-copyleft grant, but with lots of obscure restrictions and clauses that (try to) forbid incorporation into copyleft-licensed works, while still allowing incorporation into much more restrictive proprietary works (I still cannot understand how this can be really achieved). I am really disappointed that such a licensing mess ended up in Debian main. :-( -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpgHjcIUU7cz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:20:46 -0400 Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote: [I've set reply-to to me, because I'm not subscribed to this list] Karl Goetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand, but i guess we're heading down a tangent by discussing it. No, actually not. Could you include the actual licence terms for the package you are working on, perhaps with its itp bug number? There is not ITP yet, because it depends on the outcome of this discussion. The license terms in question are identical with slicer's -- except for the name of the software. Ah, i see. I'll follow up to Francesco's message then. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:46:04 +0200 Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:39:05 +1000 Karl Goetz wrote: On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400 Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote: Dear -legal, I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license that has the following clause: | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a | Contribution) and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data from | (collectively, the Software) constitutes acceptance of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or | use the Software. Does this mean if i disagree with a part of the contribution agreement that I'm not allowed to download it? It seems so. Thanks for confirming my suspicion about it. And I do *not* like it at all! I guess the next question becomes, 'Is it permissible'? I tend to feel it isn't, but it wasnt challenged when itpd[1], and the ftpmasters are clearly ok with it as its in the archive. Any other regulars want to comment on this issue? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500841 thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
Michael Hanke m...@debian.org writes: | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a | Contribution) and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data from | (collectively, the Software) constitutes acceptance of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or use | the Software. I find these terms to be somewhat ambiguous. If the requirement to accept the license before download applies only to downloads from the orginal site, I think this is fine. However, when they try to enforce downstream to present the license as an EULA before downloading, then I think this is not acceptable. Maybe not as a direct violation of the DFSG, but Debian provides no option to present an EULA before downloading packages, so distributing the software might even constitute contributory copyright infringement. Hendrik -- 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/87ei4lkg2p@mid.gienah.enyo.de
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400 Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote: Dear -legal, I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license that has the following clause: | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a | Contribution) and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data from | (collectively, the Software) constitutes acceptance of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or use | the Software. Does this mean if i disagree with a part of the contribution agreement that I'm not allowed to download it? (I'm Looking at slicers License.txt since i don't see a copy of the licence you are working with). I had some concerns about the fact the users of such package would automatically agree to all conditions in that license even before they get to see it on there system. However, apparently this is not a problem for inclusion of such package into main -- this conclusion is based on the fact that the slicer package also uses exactly this style of license: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright I assume that this is OK, because the rest of the license only imposes DFSG-compliant constraints. Is that correct? I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand, but i guess we're heading down a tangent by discussing it. Could you include the actual licence terms for the package you are working on, perhaps with its itp bug number? kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
