Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need to now (eg distributing source for GPL'd stuff). - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
* Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050111 11:45]: It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? I suggest printing it on the backside of the written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Cheers, Nick
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need to now (eg distributing source for GPL'd stuff). - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
* Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050111 11:45]: It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? I suggest printing it on the backside of the written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need to now (eg distributing source for GPL'd stuff). Um, that's us. Or do you want to put a big banner up on all our archives telling people that no matter which package they want, they *must* also download whichever package it is that contains the common licenses? Cheers, Nick
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Similarly the BSD license (2, 3 or 4 clause version) requires: | 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright |notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the |documentation and/or other materials provided with the ^ |distribution. As a tangent, it must be noted that /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is usually not exploited as a target for license reference, as it is a particular (rather than general) instance of the 3-clause BSD license: it names The Regents of the University of California as the copyright holders... -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpP4pmC0nOd3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates debhelper contained in the past. Unless someone disagrees, I'll file bugreports against those packages. (Missing permissions to be distributeable is serious even pre-sarge, isn't it?) I) Debian-specific manpages Some packages are listed twice, one time under the author listed in the manpage (as those are the ones that might be able to easily give additional permission under something sane like GPL) and one time under the current maintainer of the package. Sorted by email-address. (note, some contain a copyright notice not visible using man, try zless instead) Andrés Roldán [EMAIL PROTECTED] mtools: tgz.1.gz Benjamin Drieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] gnuserv: dtemacs.1.gz Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] nvtv: nvtvd.8.gz Mark Brown: [EMAIL PROTECTED] x86info: x86info.1.gz Chris Boyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] crack-attack: crack-attack.6.gz W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] blinkd: blink.1.gz blinkd.8.gz ethereal-dev: idl2deb.1.gz asn2deb.1.gz snacc: berdecode.1.gz snacc-config.1.gz ttthreeparser: ttthreeparser.1.gz Frederic Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] ethereal-dev: idl2deb.1.gz asn2deb.1.gz matze [EMAIL PROTECTED] kbiff: kbiff.1.gz klogik: klogik1.gz Jean-Michel Kelbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] kbiff: kbiff.1.gz klogik: klogik1.gz Filip Van Raemdonck [EMAIL PROTECTED] mtools: tgz.1.gz Emmanuel le Chevoir [EMAIL PROTECTED] icecast-server: icecast.8.gz Roberto Lumbreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] nvtv: nvtvd.8.gz Sylvain LE GALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] headache: headache.1.gz Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] crack-attack: crack-attack.6.gz II) non-Debian-specific manpages The following manpages not containing the GFDL text look not Debian-specific, so resolving this could be more complicated (or might make it necessary to include the whole GFDL-text within the manpage). Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fumitoshi UKAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] groff: groff_tmac.5.gz groff_out.5.gz roff_diff.7.gz groff.7.gz roff.7.gz groff_trace.7.gz groff_mom.7.gz ditroff.7.gz groff_char.7.gz groff-base: troff.1.gz groff.1.gz Christian Surchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] hasciicam: hasciicam.1.gz Hidetaka Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Masahito Omote [EMAIL PROTECTED] m17n-docs: mconv.1.gz mdate.1.gz medit.1.gz mimx-anthy.1.gz mimx-ispell.1.gz mview.1.gz m17n-config.1.gz mdump.1.gz mdbDir.5.gz mdbFLT.5.gz mdbFontEncoding.5.gz mdbFontSize.5.gz mdbFontset.5.gz mdbGeneral.5.gz mdbIM.5.gz mdbCharsetList.5.gz mdbCodingList.5.gz Keita Maehara [EMAIL PROTECTED] manpages-ja: groff_tmac.5.gz groff.7.gz roff.7.gz Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] oidentd: oidentd.conf.5.gz oidentd_masq.conf.5.gz oidentd.8.gz Sergio Rua [EMAIL PROTECTED] partimage: partimage.1.gz partimage-server: partimaged.8.gz partimagedusers.5.gz Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: Mark Brown: [EMAIL PROTECTED] x86info: x86info.1.gz This isn't Debian-specific since I contributed it back upstream. I've contacted upstream about relicensing it under the GPL like the rest of the package (which seems the simplest way of resolving the matter). -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
* Bernhard R. Link: Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by reference.
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by reference. I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the GFDL: H. Include an unaltered copy of this License. Note that it says /Include/, not /Accompany with/... -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpaLTz7H85bA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:53:25 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: * Francesco Poli: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by reference. I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the GFDL: H. Include an unaltered copy of this License. Note that it says /Include/, not /Accompany with/... Nothing in the license says that the Document must be a single file (or a single piece of paper). Yes, but what is the Document then, in the present case? The whole collection of manpages on the system? If you are going to argue this, I'm afraid that *all* of them will have to be under compatible licenses... not something that I would like to have as a target, when the GFDL is around :-( -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpyanwj3TSa7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
Bernhard R. Link wrote: Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates debhelper contained in the past. Debhelper has never contained templates. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 01:20:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Bernhard R. Link wrote: Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates debhelper contained in the past. Debhelper has never contained templates. He probably means dh-make. Kurt
