Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:52:38 -0500 Gunnar Wolf wrote: Francesco Poli dijo [Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 07:57:39PM +0200]: but anybody else breaches the GPL 2 or 3 by not offering source code. ... but I tend to disagree at this point. Despite the possibility of considering these file types as source code for the relevant purposes under the circumstances, I am not sure we can talk about license violation from a legal standpoint if the infringed requirement is that of redistribution of something the redistributor never received (and, in this case, something even the copyright holder could not provide, because it does not exist). This should, at the very least, constitute grounds for exemption of liability. I am not convinced: if someone releases a work under the GPL without making the corresponding source available, nobody else really has the true permission to redistribute, as the license requires re-distributors to make source available, but they cannot, since they do not have it in the first place. Well, where does the source code requirement of the GPL come from? I'd say, based on the FSF's famous four liberties, that quite probably from the conjunction of freedom to learn and freedom to modify. For a C program (that is, FSF's initial area of interest) to be learnable and modifiable, you clearly need the source code. Yes, I would say. Now, music is not learnt directly through its sources (i.e. a MIDI file and the used samples). Not *only* through its source (== preferred form for making modifications), but *also* through other forms. But the same is true for a C program: you can learn a lot about it, by using its executable binary, studying its documentation, testing it under odd conditions, analyzing how it interacts with other programs and/or the network (for instance, think about the use of network sniffers to understand what a network application does), de-compiling it, disassembling it, and so forth... And it can be meaningfully modified. The same holds for a C program: you can de-compile/modify/re-compile it, you can disassemble/modify/re-assemble it, edit it with a hex-editor, and so forth. So, yes, we talk about a field where modifiability has many gradients. I agree that the OGG files are quite possibly not the prefered form of modification (specially for any synthetized music - I don't know Wesnoth or its music). In some cases a music file in OGG Vorbis format may be its own source. In other cases it is not. It really depends on the specifics of the situation under consideration. Please note that the same holds for a program: sometimes C code is source, sometimes it's automatically generated from code written in another language (for example a grammar description language), which is the real source. My take on this would be, the Debian maintainer responsible for a given program should ask its upstream for something that qualifies as source, but if upstream refuses (or just says it does no longer exist — Effectively the same), continue to distribute what we have. I disagree. If a form really no longer exists, not even in the hands of the original author (or copyright holder) of the work, then such form cannot qualify as source (== preferred form for making modifications to the work). Whenever this is the case, we must determine which is the preferred form *among the existing ones*. If instead a form still exists, is the form that the author prefers for making modifications to the work, but is kept secret and unreleased (by either refusing to disclose it or by falsely claiming that it no longer exist), then we are dealing with a secret-source work, which does not comply with DFSG#2. There was a GR in 2004 to clarify the social contract, in order to make it clear that the DFSG apply to all works (in Debian main), not just executable programs. Hence I think the agreed upon interpretation is that music and images must include source code. Right. The problem is the definition of source code. Please let's not restart the what is source? debate! I may consider it as expected on the cc-licenses mailing list, but not here on debian-legal! -- 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 pgpzrFAxkLAqw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:56:55 -0500 Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 07:57:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: I am not convinced: if someone releases a work under the GPL without making the corresponding source available, nobody else really has the true permission to redistribute, as the license requires re-distributors to make source available, but they cannot, since they do not have it in the first place. Law is not a computer algorithm, and the intention of the licensor must be taken into consideration. I agree, but the intention is in general not overly clear, especially when a licensor releases a work under the GPL and, at the same time, does not make source available. Self-contradicting actions leave the beholders in doubt about the real intentions. Please also take into account that, in some cases, the authors of some wesnoth-music files explicitly *refused* to release source (== their preferred form for making modifications), and proposed, as a solution to re-license under the terms of a license which does *not* have any source-availability requirement. So, at least in those cases, their intentions to *not* make source available is pretty clear. See the previously cited forum threads... If licensing the software under the GPL indicates a clear intent to allow redistribution, provided that the same freedom you were granted by the copyright holder is passed on to those who get the software from you, the fact that a small portion of the overall software package has no source code available (even to the copyright holder) should not bar such redistribution. I don't know how it would end up in court, in case someone [*] sues, but I think that, in order to be on the safe side, we should assume a strict interpretation of the license and consider those files as legally undistributable. [*] by someone, I mean the copyright holder(s) of other parts of the package, not the authors of the unreleased source files Under certain civil law jurisdictions, it would also be technically accurate to state that conditions which cannot possibly be met are void, although they do not void the rest of the contract of which they are part. Again, making it clearer does not hurt and certainly avoids potential future discussion, but I do not agree there is any risk of liability by not distributing something the copyright holder (inadvertently) required you to redistribute, without ever distributing it to you. Would you reason the same way, if we were speaking about a GPL-licensed executable program, distributed in binary form, while keeping its source code secret? There was a GR in 2004 to clarify the social contract, in order to make it clear that the DFSG apply to all works (in Debian main), not just executable programs. Hence I think the agreed upon interpretation is that music and images must include source code. I am not discussing whether the music and image files in the Debian archive should comply with the DFSG requirements or not - I have been a strong advocate thereof since the early days of my involvement with Debian, back in 2002. What I am arguing is whether wesnoth music and image files would be considered non-free, given the circumstances. For the cases where it is clear that the source (== preferred form for making modifications) is not what is being distributed and the original authors explicitly stated that they do *not* want to release it to the public, ..., well, how shall we call these files? differently free?!? [...] However, I do not think that attaching the non-free label to an effectively free piece of software is consistent with the other goals we have agreed on as a community, especially if there is no unwillingness on the upstream author's part to fix a license problem, or any attempt to circumvent the requirements of the DFSG and deprive our users of their freedoms, but rather an unfortunate lack of caution with the handling of file formats. In some cases there appears to be an unwillingness to fix this issue, as the authors actively refused to release source. In other cases, the form originally used to generate the distributed file seems to no longer exist. If this is really true, then the source for such a file is clearly one of the actually existing ones: possibly the one which is being distributed; if this is the case, no problem whatsoever. These are considerations that apply to the specific circumstances of the given case. I am not trying to revert the project consensus (and that might be related to the fact that I agree with it!), just trying to be reasonable. I am also trying to be reasonable: I think that we should not set precedents that qualify secret-source files as acceptable in Debian main, just because they are not programs... Quoting from another GR proposition (that did not pass), source code can be understood as the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would
Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
Francesco Poli dijo [Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 07:57:39PM +0200]: but anybody else breaches the GPL 2 or 3 by not offering source code. ... but I tend to disagree at this point. Despite the possibility of considering these file types as source code for the relevant purposes under the circumstances, I am not sure we can talk about license violation from a legal standpoint if the infringed requirement is that of redistribution of something the redistributor never received (and, in this case, something even the copyright holder could not provide, because it does not exist). This should, at the very least, constitute grounds for exemption of liability. I am not convinced: if someone releases a work under the GPL without making the corresponding source available, nobody else really has the true permission to redistribute, as the license requires re-distributors to make source available, but they cannot, since they do not have it in the first place. Well, where does the source code requirement of the GPL come from? I'd say, based on the FSF's famous four liberties, that quite probably from the conjunction of freedom to learn and freedom to modify. For a C program (that is, FSF's initial area of interest) to be learnable and modifiable, you clearly need the source code. Now, music is not learnt directly through its sources (i.e. a MIDI file and the used samples). And it can be meaningfully modified. So, yes, we talk about a field where modifiability has many gradients. I agree that the OGG files are quite possibly not the prefered form of modification (specially for any synthetized music - I don't know Wesnoth or its music). My take on this would be, the Debian maintainer responsible for a given program should ask its upstream for something that qualifies as source, but if upstream refuses (or just says it does no longer exist — Effectively the same), continue to distribute what we have. There was a GR in 2004 to clarify the social contract, in order to make it clear that the DFSG apply to all works (in Debian main), not just executable programs. Hence I think the agreed upon interpretation is that music and images must include source code. Right. The problem is the definition of source code. -- 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/20120417185238.ge29...@gwolf.org
Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
Hi, first of all, I'd like to point out that this topic is NOT a wesnoth specific one. I have tried to bring up the point several times in the past (even years ago), it was always sorta ignored, even though people said that yeah, surely the flattened images/music scores aren't source nor preferred source for modifications - but then nothing more happened, because noone seems to want to cut out the whole archive. * Evgeny Kapun abacabadabac...@gmail.com [2012-04-15 22:08:27 CEST]: I've found that music tracks for The Battle for Wesnoth (package wesnoth-music in Debian) are only provided as compressed Ogg Vorbis files, without any information used to generate them. I have two questions: Again, this is nothing wesnoth specific, this is the same with mostly all music files out there, and neither is limited to music files but also to images. * Does wesnoth-music comply with DFSG? I've heard that at certain point DFSG only applied to programs, but later firmware, documentation and other materials were also included. Does DFSG (and, specifically, its requirement of having source code included) apply to music? wesnoth-music complies with DFSG as much as any other flattened image or music file in the archive complies with it. * Does distributing wesnoth-music without source code comply with its license (GPL 2+)? This might be seen a bit more problematic (but still not wesnoth specific), though you write: There was some discussion about this problem on wesnoth forums [1][2]. It mentions that at least some of music files in question were generated using proprietary software, and that even the authors can't regenerate some of them anymore. If the authors can't regenerate some of them anymore they must see the ogg files as the preferred source for modification themself. And this is usually what also gets applied to graphic files: The rendered/flattened image is argued to be the preferred source for modification. If that wouldn't be the case, our debian logo would be a violation of the DFSG too because the font used for the lettering is a non-free one, and the swirl was produced with a brush from photoshop. So if you want to pursue this be aware that it either has to be followed up properly and not having wesnoth singled out because that would look quite ignoring of the real issue. Thanks, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los| -- 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/20120416084653.ga17...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:58:59 -0500 Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore wrote: On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:38:34PM +0200, Mark Weyer wrote: [...] but anybody else breaches the GPL 2 or 3 by not offering source code. ... but I tend to disagree at this point. Despite the possibility of considering these file types as source code for the relevant purposes under the circumstances, I am not sure we can talk about license violation from a legal standpoint if the infringed requirement is that of redistribution of something the redistributor never received (and, in this case, something even the copyright holder could not provide, because it does not exist). This should, at the very least, constitute grounds for exemption of liability. I am not convinced: if someone releases a work under the GPL without making the corresponding source available, nobody else really has the true permission to redistribute, as the license requires re-distributors to make source available, but they cannot, since they do not have it in the first place. Excluding cases where a re-distributor creates a modified version using what he/she has received: in those cases, the source for the modified version is truly the form that the modifier chose to make modifications to the original work. [...] As for a possible DFSG violation, assuming from the considerations above that the right to redistribute is not impaired, the last (and obviously not least) remaining issue would be the requirement that [t]he program must include source code. In this context, I think such requirement is widely open to interpretation, and I tend to think that considering wesnoth-music non-free would be counter-productive and inconsistent with the principles outlined in the Social Contract and with the remainder of the DFSG. That, however, is merely a personal opinion, of which I am actually not quite convinced. I look forward to hearing other people's comments on the issue. There was a GR in 2004 to clarify the social contract, in order to make it clear that the DFSG apply to all works (in Debian main), not just executable programs. Hence I think the agreed upon interpretation is that music and images must include source code. -- 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 pgpKiPoyaiTZK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 07:57:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: I am not convinced: if someone releases a work under the GPL without making the corresponding source available, nobody else really has the true permission to redistribute, as the license requires re-distributors to make source available, but they cannot, since they do not have it in the first place. Law is not a computer algorithm, and the intention of the licensor must be taken into consideration. If licensing the software under the GPL indicates a clear intent to allow redistribution, provided that the same freedom you were granted by the copyright holder is passed on to those who get the software from you, the fact that a small portion of the overall software package has no source code available (even to the copyright holder) should not bar such redistribution. Under certain civil law jurisdictions, it would also be technically accurate to state that conditions which cannot possibly be met are void, although they do not void the rest of the contract of which they are part. Again, making it clearer does not hurt and certainly avoids potential future discussion, but I do not agree there is any risk of liability by not distributing something the copyright holder (inadvertently) required you to redistribute, without ever distributing it to you. There was a GR in 2004 to clarify the social contract, in order to make it clear that the DFSG apply to all works (in Debian main), not just executable programs. Hence I think the agreed upon interpretation is that music and images must include source code. I am not discussing whether the music and image files in the Debian archive should comply with the DFSG requirements or not - I have been a strong advocate thereof since the early days of my involvement with Debian, back in 2002. What I am arguing is whether wesnoth music and image files would be considered non-free, given the circumstances. On one hand, I concede that it would be good policy to require that all these files be in a more appropriate format for editing purposes, because it would further our goals, stimulate best practices and help spread the often ignored perception that these compressed files do not contribute to the development of Free Software. However, I do not think that attaching the non-free label to an effectively free piece of software is consistent with the other goals we have agreed on as a community, especially if there is no unwillingness on the upstream author's part to fix a license problem, or any attempt to circumvent the requirements of the DFSG and deprive our users of their freedoms, but rather an unfortunate lack of caution with the handling of file formats. These are considerations that apply to the specific circumstances of the given case. I am not trying to revert the project consensus (and that might be related to the fact that I agree with it!), just trying to be reasonable. Quoting from another GR proposition (that did not pass), source code can be understood as the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification, and not a format that is preferred in absolute terms or in hypothetical situations. I am still worried about the precedent and about the consequences of the widespread application of this same waiver to the rest of the archive, but I have a strong personal feeling about considering wesnoth non-free for this sole reason. -- Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore gpast...@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/20120417015655.ga3...@pastore.eng.br
No source code for wesnoth-music
Hi, I've found that music tracks for The Battle for Wesnoth (package wesnoth-music in Debian) are only provided as compressed Ogg Vorbis files, without any information used to generate them. I have two questions: * Does wesnoth-music comply with DFSG? I've heard that at certain point DFSG only applied to programs, but later firmware, documentation and other materials were also included. Does DFSG (and, specifically, its requirement of having source code included) apply to music? * Does distributing wesnoth-music without source code comply with its license (GPL 2+)? There was some discussion about this problem on wesnoth forums [1][2]. It mentions that at least some of music files in question were generated using proprietary software, and that even the authors can't regenerate some of them anymore. [1] http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=21082 [2] http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=30728 -- Evgeny Kapun -- 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/4f8b2abb.1050...@gmail.com
Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:08:27AM +0400, Evgeny Kapun wrote: Hi, I've found that music tracks for The Battle for Wesnoth (package wesnoth-music in Debian) are only provided as compressed Ogg Vorbis files, without any information used to generate them. I have two questions: * Does wesnoth-music comply with DFSG? I've heard that at certain point DFSG only applied to programs, but later firmware, documentation and other materials were also included. Does DFSG (and, specifically, its requirement of having source code included) apply to music? The DFSG applies to all software. After previous misunderstandings, a Debian General Resolution has clarified that fact. Some people prefer to say that the DFSG applies to all software only *since* the GR. There is a good reason that source is required for all software, including music: So that the music is open for improvement and for adaption to different requirements (e.g. using musical instruments matching the theme of a campaign (tribal/medieval/SF)). * Does distributing wesnoth-music without source code comply with its license (GPL 2+)? No. The copyright holders can distribute their own work in any way they like, but anybody else breaches the GPL 2 or 3 by not offering source code. There was some discussion about this problem on wesnoth forums [1][2]. It mentions that at least some of music files in question were generated using proprietary software, and that even the authors can't regenerate some of them anymore. Apparently there is a consensus that if the original source was lost, then whatever still is there counts as source. So in that your the compressed ogg files are the source form (because they are prefered among all existing forms). (I always fear that mentioning that consensus might lead people reluctant to reveal their true sources to accidentally delete them.) Hope this helps. I am not a lawyer. I am not a Debian anything. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- 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/20120415203834.GB1859@debian
Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:38:34PM +0200, Mark Weyer wrote: * Does distributing wesnoth-music without source code comply with its license (GPL 2+)? No. The copyright holders can distribute their own work in any way they like, No discussion here... but anybody else breaches the GPL 2 or 3 by not offering source code. ... but I tend to disagree at this point. Despite the possibility of considering these file types as source code for the relevant purposes under the circumstances, I am not sure we can talk about license violation from a legal standpoint if the infringed requirement is that of redistribution of something the redistributor never received (and, in this case, something even the copyright holder could not provide, because it does not exist). This should, at the very least, constitute grounds for exemption of liability. Perhaps we would all be playing safer if upstream relicensed the affected files accordingly, but I do not think that should be given much importance. As for a possible DFSG violation, assuming from the considerations above that the right to redistribute is not impaired, the last (and obviously not least) remaining issue would be the requirement that [t]he program must include source code. In this context, I think such requirement is widely open to interpretation, and I tend to think that considering wesnoth-music non-free would be counter-productive and inconsistent with the principles outlined in the Social Contract and with the remainder of the DFSG. That, however, is merely a personal opinion, of which I am actually not quite convinced. I look forward to hearing other people's comments on the issue. -- Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore gpast...@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/20120416005859.ga1...@pastore.eng.br
