Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Le Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:10:29PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a copy of the software (in compiled form). Le Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 09:45:39AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : I think of it more as a translation into another language. It's an automated, mechanical translation though, so unlike most human-language translated works, there's no creativity in the translation step. I am quite undecided between the possible interpretations. But maybe this question was already judged somewhere ? Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:45:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. There's little to connect the two forms. If given a bunch of bytes and a bundle of source code, in many cases it would not be easy to say whether one was a compiled version of the other. That makes it rather unlike what most people would mean by “copy”. Wait, wait: I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here between you and me (I am sorry for not being always crystal clear: I am not an English native speaker, hence I sometimes fail to choose the best phrasing to express my thoughts...). I *agree* with you that the compiled form of the software should *not* be called a copy of the source form. What I meant was: IMHO a copy of the compiled form of the software *does* qualify as a copy of the software (in compiled form, obviously, but that doesn't imply that it's not a copy of the same software). Let's bear in mind that we are discussing the following ISC license clause: | Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any ^ | purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above | copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ What Charles was wondering was whether compiled versions are or are not subject to the obligation to be shipped with copyright permission notice. I think that a compiled version of the software is indeed a copy of the software (just in a different form than the source code version). Or, to be more explicit: (a) you get a compiled version of the software by processing the source code of the software (with a compiler): what you get is the same piece of software, just in a different form (b) when binary distribution is in place, a recipient gets a copy of the compiled version: that copy qualifies as a copy of the software (in compiled form). Step (a) is a mechanical transformation that does not create a new distinct work: from a copyright point of view, no derivative work is created, just another form of the same work. Step (b) creates a copy of the compiled form of the work. An example that should clarify further: many people get copies of compiled versions of Microsoft Windows (from retailers, from hardware manufacturers, and so forth): this is commonly described as getting a copy of Windows, even though the source form is jealously kept secret by Microsoft. I hope I clarified what I meant. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpe69v3WYkxk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a copy of the software (in compiled form). Have a nice day. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpX2nWuTTkqM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. There's little to connect the two forms. If given a bunch of bytes and a bundle of source code, in many cases it would not be easy to say whether one was a compiled version of the other. That makes it rather unlike what most people would mean by “copy”. I think of it more as a translation into another language. It's an automated, mechanical translation though, so unlike most human-language translated works, there's no creativity in the translation step. What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? Perhaps a “transformation” is better. It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a copy of the software (in compiled form). I think it's instructive that the GPL discusses “form of the work”, not “copy”, for this distinction; perhaps in an effort to be clear about this point. -- \“We should be less concerned about adding years to life, and | `\ more about adding life to years.” —Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpGQyGGG1m8q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
Le Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 11:57:28PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in binary distributions. In order to start clarifying the situation, I propose to list for the most common licenses when they require to reproduce copyright statements. The final goal is to help packagers to keep the debian/copyright file simple while respecting license terms. I propose to make this list on the Debian wiki, and created a draft page: http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices Dear all, let's start with the Internet Software Consortium license: Copyright © 2004-2009 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. (ISC) Copyright © 1995-2003 by Internet Software Consortium Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. (from ‘https://www.isc.org/software/license’) Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? If yes, it seems that the copyright notice should be reproduced in our binary packages, typically in debian/copyright. But let's remember that in the case of works distributed under the terms of the GPL, we consider that the binary packages are only one piece of a bigger cake, that includes the source package. In that case, the ISC license would also be satisfied if debian/copyright would not contain the copyright notice. What is your opinion? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
