Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header, deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I considered those irrelevant for the question at hand. I think it's probably important to have the disclaimer because some licensors have tried to slip licence restrictions or liabilities into what they labelled as disclaimers; and it's useful to know the copyright holder in case it's one of the few that insists on particular interpretations of terms like use. It also makes it slightly easier to spot common-licenses and compare with them with wdiff because they are included in debian whole. Thanks for asking. I've nothing much to add to other comments on the substantial question. ccing as originally requested. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22:12AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header, deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I considered those irrelevant for the question at hand. I think it's probably important to have the disclaimer because some licensors have tried to slip licence restrictions or liabilities into what they labelled as disclaimers; and it's useful to know the copyright holder in case it's one of the few that insists on particular interpretations of terms like use. It also makes it slightly easier to spot common-licenses and compare with them with wdiff because they are included in debian whole. Thanks for asking. I've nothing much to add to other comments on the substantial question. ccing as originally requested. Hope that helps, It certainly helps - all the input from you guys! I will now go through my (or my where team-maintained) 90+ packages and make sure disclaimers are included. ...oh, a related question: when including disclaimer of older GPL-licenses then lintian complains that the address is wrong - but isn't it wrong of us to correct that, as then the text is no longer verbatim? (sorry if this is a FAQ somewhere) Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes: On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22:12AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I think it's probably important to have the disclaimer because some licensors have tried to slip licence restrictions or liabilities into what they labelled as disclaimers; and it's useful to know the copyright holder in case it's one of the few that insists on particular interpretations of terms like use. I interpret MJ here as saying that it's useful to include the full text *in the discussion here on ‘debian-legal’*, and not commenting on whether it's appropriate for the ‘copyright’ file. Perhaps I'm wrong and MJ does intend to comment on the ‘copyright’ file contents. I will now go through my (or my where team-maintained) 90+ packages and make sure disclaimers are included. I don't think the disclaimer is part of the copyright license terms, so doesn't need to be in ‘copyright’. You certainly need to preserve it in the original upstream source files, of course! But I don't see the need to duplicate it. ...oh, a related question: when including disclaimer of older GPL-licenses then lintian complains that the address is wrong - but isn't it wrong of us to correct that, as then the text is no longer verbatim? Yes, you're right. If the copyright license is one that you think upstream has neglected to update, you should work with upstream to address that, and not change it on their behalf since you're not the copyright holder who granted the license. -- \ “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his | `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpOrLyK8vY7B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes: I will now go through my (or my where team-maintained) 90+ packages and make sure disclaimers are included. I don't think the disclaimer is part of the copyright license terms, so doesn't need to be in ‘copyright’. You certainly need to preserve it in the original upstream source files, of course! But I don't see the need to duplicate it. Belay that. On further consideration, the disclaimer is not a *condition* of the license (it's not something that restricts the recipient's exercise of their rights in the work), but it is a *term* of the license (something that's part of the deal received by the recipient). Therefore it needs to be documented in ‘copyright’. IANAL and I may be using these terms incorrectly; but the reasoning seems sound to me. Hopefully any errors can be pointed out gleefully by others :-) -- \ “What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy | `\ river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.” —Jack | _o__) Handey | Ben Finney pgpn9fwZjsDSN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
Hi, At Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:13:09 +0200, In addition to Francesco's mail, I'd like to ask why ghostscript is committing the CMap files to their SVN, shouldn't they just depend on them instead of making an embedded data copy? We (the Debian ghostscript team) do not include CMap files, upstream do. Yes, and I had been removing them from orig.tar.gz manually whenever the new upstream release came out... I don't know why they include CMaps in the upstream tarball. My guess is, until very recently, Adobe didn't release CMaps in a coherent way -- sometimes a part of Acrobat, sometimes a part of something, such as the example files of Lunde's CJKV book, or mysteriously appear out of the blue in somewhere at ftp.adobe.com, etc. And in some cases those were a little bit different from each other. I guess that's one of the reason the upstream decided to include their own copy of CMaps in GS tarball. Of course, now the situation has changed, so it's possibly worth trying to convince the upstream not to include CMaps in the upstream tarball. It became a mere redundancy. Also, I know some Debian packages currently contain or use their own copy of Cmaps. For example, poppler uses poppler-data, which contains Cmaps. IIRC xpdf-* and dvipdfmx have some Cmaps, too. I think we should begin a coordinated effort to identify such packages and try to convince the upstream or Debian maintainers to use Cmaps in cmap-adobe-* instead. Possibly we need some very short Debian Cmap policy or such, I guess. They include several software parts that we then avoid using - more so in recent cleanups made by me, and even more (separate packaging of jbig2dec) still pending. That's their tradition -- they want their customers to use the libraries included in the upstream tarball, so that they can (hopefully) reproduce any problem their customer has experienced. From a security perspective, it's a nightmare. Masayuki Hatta is probably more knowledgable about CMap files than me. I just didn't hear from him for a long time so did not expect him to be active currently. Still buried under a pile of everyday odd jobs -- sorry but you are doing fine ;-) Hopefully I'll be back soon. Best regards, MH -- Masayuki Hatta Graduate School of Economics, The University of Tokyo Manufacturing Management Research Center, The University of Tokyo mha...@mhatta.org / mha...@grad.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp mha...@gnu.org / mha...@debian.org / mha...@opensource.jp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:53 AM, mha...@mhatta.org wrote: Also, I know some Debian packages currently contain or use their own copy of Cmaps. For example, poppler uses poppler-data, which contains Cmaps. IIRC xpdf-* and dvipdfmx have some Cmaps, too. I think we should begin a coordinated effort to identify such packages and try to convince the upstream or Debian maintainers to use Cmaps in cmap-adobe-* instead. Possibly we need some very short Debian Cmap policy or such, I guess. IMO, just file some wishlist bugs for all the packages containing a copy of the Cmap files. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:05:44 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Mmmmh, it seems that you didn't *fully* quote the text of the new license... I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header, deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I considered those irrelevant for the question at hand. Please do educate me if that was a) incorrectly separated, I would say you left out the third clause, which is the difference between the 3-clause BSD license and the 2-clause BSD license... b) bad style to leave out those other parts for questions like this I personally think that the copyright notice is important to quote too, as we are talking about a specific work, rather than about a license in a vacuum. Moreover, the disclaimer is typically attached to the license, and is part of the legal text that grants the permissions we need. In some licenses, it is even more entwined with the rest of the legal text. I think the disclaimer should be fully quoted too. [...] Here is verbatim the top 43 lines of that same CMap file, rev10096 of http://svn.ghostscript.com/ghostscript/trunk/gs/Resource/CMap/78-EUC-H : [...] This seems to actually correspond to http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License Good. The blog post cited in the above message is: http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2009/09/24/adobe-data-freed/ and the actual text of the new license is: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License which is basically the 3-clause BSD license. Oh, ok. I did not recognize it as BSD license. Thanks for the clarification. You're welcome! :-) -- 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 pgp2QxuJQKD5S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:32:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:05:44 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Mmmmh, it seems that you didn't *fully* quote the text of the new license... I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header, deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I considered those irrelevant for the question at hand. Please do educate me if that was a) incorrectly separated, I would say you left out the third clause, which is the difference between the 3-clause BSD license and the 2-clause BSD license... Ah, ok. b) bad style to leave out those other parts for questions like this I personally think that the copyright notice is important to quote too, as we are talking about a specific work, rather than about a license in a vacuum. Moreover, the disclaimer is typically attached to the license, and is part of the legal text that grants the permissions we need. In some licenses, it is even more entwined with the rest of the legal text. I think the disclaimer should be fully quoted too. Thanks for educating me! :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
Hi, The Ghostscript project includes some so-called CMap files contributed by Adobe, which until recently was shipped with a non-free license allowing only redistribution: Permission is granted for redistribution of this file provided this copyright notice is maintained intact and that the contents of this file are not altered in any way from its original form. Consequently Ghostscript in Debian have shipped without those CMap files, hurting (as I understand it) handling of multibyte fonts. September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. Commit message indicates that Ghostscript project interpret the new license as allowing modifications. I would like to have the legal teams opinion on whether this new license is acceptable for the Debian project. I am especially concerned about the the initial limitations: do use in source form mean we are allowed only to compile the virgin code or does that also allow us to derive and compile something else? Kind regards, - Jonas co-maintainer of Ghostscript for Debian Please cc me personally on responses, as I am not subscribed to the list. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:28:30 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Hi, Hi! :-) The Ghostscript project includes some so-called CMap files contributed by Adobe, which until recently was shipped with a non-free license allowing only redistribution: [...] Consequently Ghostscript in Debian have shipped without those CMap files, hurting (as I understand it) handling of multibyte fonts. September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. Mmmmh, it seems that you didn't *fully* quote the text of the new license... Commit message indicates that Ghostscript project interpret the new license as allowing modifications. I would like to have the legal teams opinion on whether this new license is acceptable for the Debian project. [...] According to recent news about this re-licensing, the newly adopted license is a BSD license: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00044.html The blog post cited in the above message is: http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2009/09/24/adobe-data-freed/ and the actual text of the new license is: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License which is basically the 3-clause BSD license. The 3-clause BSD license is a simple and permissive Free Software non-copyleft license: it is perfectly fine for Debian (main). There are many other packages in main that are released under equivalent terms. [...] Please cc me personally on responses, as I am not subscribed to the list. Done. -- 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 pgpKSkRybsxLW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. In addition to Francesco's mail, I'd like to ask why ghostscript is committing the CMap files to their SVN, shouldn't they just depend on them instead of making an embedded data copy? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:28:30 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. Mmmmh, it seems that you didn't *fully* quote the text of the new license... I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header, deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I considered those irrelevant for the question at hand. Please do educate me if that was a) incorrectly separated, b) bad style to leave out those other parts for questions like this or c) something else was wrong with what I did. Here is verbatim the top 43 lines of that same CMap file, rev10096 of http://svn.ghostscript.com/ghostscript/trunk/gs/Resource/CMap/78-EUC-H : %!PS-Adobe-3.0 Resource-CMap %%DocumentNeededResources: ProcSet (CIDInit) %%IncludeResource: ProcSet (CIDInit) %%BeginResource: CMap (78-EUC-H) %%Title: (78-EUC-H Adobe Japan1 0) %%Version: 10.003 %%Copyright: --- %%Copyright: Copyright 1990-2009 Adobe Systems Incorporated. %%Copyright: All rights reserved. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or %%Copyright: without modification, are permitted provided that the %%Copyright: following conditions are met: %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Redistributions of source code must retain the above %%Copyright: copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following %%Copyright: disclaimer. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above %%Copyright: copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following %%Copyright: disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials %%Copyright: provided with the distribution.. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Neither the name of Adobe Systems Incorporated nor the names %%Copyright: of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote %%Copyright: products derived from this software without specific prior %%Copyright: written permission.. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND %%Copyright: CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, %%Copyright: INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF %%Copyright: MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE %%Copyright: DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR %%Copyright: CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, %%Copyright: SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT %%Copyright: NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; %%Copyright: LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) %%Copyright: HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN %%Copyright: CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR %%Copyright: OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS %%Copyright: SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. %%Copyright: --- %%EndComments Commit message indicates that Ghostscript project interpret the new license as allowing modifications. I would like to have the legal teams opinion on whether this new license is acceptable for the Debian project. [...] According to recent news about this re-licensing, the newly adopted license is a BSD license: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00044.html Oh, above thread started as a dialog with Masayuki Hatta. Odd that he did not inform his fellow package maintainers of Ghostscript... :-/ The blog post cited in the above message is: http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2009/09/24/adobe-data-freed/ and the actual text of the new license is: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License which is basically the 3-clause BSD license. Oh, ok. I did not recognize it as BSD license. Thanks for the clarification. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:24:56PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 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. In addition to Francesco's mail, I'd like to ask why ghostscript is committing the CMap files to their SVN, shouldn't they just depend on them instead of making an embedded data copy? We (the Debian ghostscript team) do not include CMap files, upstream do. They include several software parts that we then avoid using - more so in recent cleanups made by me, and even more (separate packaging of jbig2dec) still pending. Masayuki Hatta is probably more knowledgable about CMap files than me. I just didn't hear from him for a long time so did not expect him to be active currently. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
