Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:32:33 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote: * Ken Arromdee: Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses this software. Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL? It may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so much easier. Frankly speaking, I fail to see the analogies between this license and the GNU AfferoGPL v3... And anyway, I personally don't think that works licensed under the terms of the GNU AfferoGPL v3 should be regarded as complying with the DFSG. Despite what the ftp-masters say... -- 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 pgpZfLbnftc4B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 at 07:32:33 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Ken Arromdee: Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses this software. Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL? It may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so much easier. The AGPL requires you to provide (an opportunity to download) Corresponding Source in the webapp itself, but this license contaminates web pages that merely *refer to* the webapp; I think that's considerably more onerous. (If Spread-based webapps had to display the specified text This product... For more info... in the webapp itself, you're right that that would be less onerous than the AGPL, but that's not what the license says.) S -- 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/20110905183950.ga32...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
Simon McVittie s...@debian.org writes: On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 at 07:32:33 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Ken Arromdee: Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses this software. Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL? It may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so much easier. The AGPL requires you to provide (an opportunity to download) Corresponding Source in the webapp itself, but this license contaminates web pages that merely *refer to* the webapp; I think that's considerably more onerous. Which highlights another problem with this license's wording: the nefarious word “use”. It's wholly unclear what set of actions “use this software” is intended to refer to; it certainly isn't consistently applied in license texts. So without enumeration of the actions permitted or forbidden, it's impossible to know whether the work is free software. -- \ “Some forms of reality are so horrible we refuse to face them, | `\ unless we are trapped into it by comedy. To label any subject | _o__)unsuitable for comedy is to admit defeat.” —Peter Sellers | Ben Finney -- 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/87k49mob1t@benfinney.id.au
Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
Package: spread Severity: serious 3. All advertising materials (including web pages) mentioning features or use of this software, or software that uses this software, must display the following acknowledgment: This product uses software developed by Spread Concepts LLC for use in the Spread toolkit. For more information about Spread see http://www.spread.org; Seriously? For -legal: consider this page: http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/spread -- 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/20110831145027.ga25...@suffields.me.uk
Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:50:27 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote: Package: spread Severity: serious 3. All advertising materials (including web pages) mentioning features or use of this software, or software that uses this software, must display the following acknowledgment: This product uses software developed by Spread Concepts LLC for use in the Spread toolkit. For more information about Spread see http://www.spread.org; Seriously? Seriously what? I am not sure I understand what you mean: could you please elaborate? What you quoted looks like an Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC), a GPL-incompatible restriction, but one that has traditionally been accepted by the Debian Project as compliant with the DFSG (even though recommended against), AFAICT. I took an ultra-quick glance at the full license text http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/spread/spread_3.17.4-2/spread.copyright and I noticed a choice of venue clause (with venue fixed in the courts of the State of Maryland, USA). As it is well-known, choice of venue clauses have been discussed to death here on debian-legal, with opposing opinions expressed by a lot of different people. My own personal take on the matter is that such clauses are non-free restrictions, since they may force licensees to sustain unreasonable costs due to long distance travels. For -legal: consider this page: http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/spread What should I consider, more precisely? -- 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 pgpKAqMIMFy1A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Francesco Poli wrote: 3. All advertising materials (including web pages) mentioning features or use of this software, or software that uses this software, must display the following acknowledgment: This product uses software developed by Spread Concepts LLC for use in the Spread toolkit. For more information about Spread see http://www.spread.org; What you quoted looks like an Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC), a GPL-incompatible restriction, but one that has traditionally been accepted by the Debian Project as compliant with the DFSG (even though recommended against), AFAICT. Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses this software. If I interpret this broadly (all software that uses this software must display the sentence) it's non-free, since it imposes conditions on non-derived software that happens to use it. Even if I interpret it narrowly (all advertising materials mentioning software that uses this software, must display the sentence) it imposes conditions on advertising for non-derived software. If I interpret the addition as meaning derived works the license is free but the wording is redundant. -- 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/alpine.lrh.2.00.1108311102040.13...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:31:59 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:28:03PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:50:27 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote: Package: spread Severity: serious 3. All advertising materials (including web pages) mentioning features or use of this software, or software that uses this software, must display the following acknowledgment: This product uses software developed by Spread Concepts LLC for use in the Spread toolkit. For more information about Spread see http://www.spread.org; For -legal: consider this page: http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/spread What should I consider, more precisely? Why does this webpage, which mentions features and use of the software, not contain the statement required by the license? Ah, I now see what you meant. I interpreted the sentence as All advertising materials (even when they consist of web pages) mentioning Hence, I failed to see any issues with http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/spread which is indeed a web page, but not advertising material, AFAICT. However, I now see that another interpretation is possible. You are right that the sentence is unclear at best, and could be interpreted as implying that all web pages are to be considered, by definition, advertising materials. Is this requirement one which Debian can realistically satisfy? Maybe or maybe not, but, if the second interpretation is indeed the one intended by the license drafter(s) and (especially) by the software copyright holder(s), it is more obnoxious than obnoxious... How did this absurdity ever get in? I don't know. As far as I am concerned, I have realized that FTP-masters are often much more lax than me and other debian-legal regulars, when assessing DFSG-freeness... :-( This could be one of those cases... or maybe just a simple oversight... -- 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 pgpe7gDpcEwcx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Francesco Poli wrote: 3. All advertising materials (including web pages) mentioning features or use of this software, or software that uses this software, must display the following acknowledgment: This product uses software developed by Spread Concepts LLC for use in the Spread toolkit. For more information about Spread see http://www.spread.org; What you quoted looks like an Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC), a GPL-incompatible restriction, but one that has traditionally been accepted by the Debian Project as compliant with the DFSG (even though recommended against), AFAICT. Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses this software. Mmmmh, another difference with the OAC, that I somewhat neglected during my first reading... It seems that I am tired in these days, or maybe I am getting old! :-/ If I interpret this broadly (all software that uses this software must display the sentence) it's non-free, since it imposes conditions on non-derived software that happens to use it. On the grounds of DFSG#9, I suppose. Even if I interpret it narrowly (all advertising materials mentioning software that uses this software, must display the sentence) it imposes conditions on advertising for non-derived software. It looks right. If I interpret the addition as meaning derived works the license is free but the wording is redundant. Sure. In summary, what you pointed out is another reason why the clause is unclear at best, non-free at worst. -- 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 pgpEUN0ebGOwz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net writes: Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses this software. If I interpret this broadly (all software that uses this software must display the sentence) it's non-free, since it imposes conditions on non-derived software that happens to use it. Even if I interpret it narrowly (all advertising materials mentioning software that uses this software, must display the sentence) it imposes conditions on advertising for non-derived software. But this does not break unrelated software as the code that uses it has to be inserted deliberately, making it no longer unrelated. In a way, this is a stronger restriction than the usual linking arguments pushed by the FSF, but it's not totally crazy. In some jurisdictions even copying a program into memory by an exec(3) call is an action for which you need the permission by the rights holder. 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/87d3flw1kq@mid.gienah.enyo.de
