Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:35 AM, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a slew of words! The branden misses! Ridicule does nothing to help your argument. Of all the people on -legal to complain about humor. At least I avoided: The anthony attacks the branden with a cc against his Mail-Followup-To header! The branden counterattacks with a list policy! though it was tempting.
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:35:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] magical +3 sigh of hyperbole deflection The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a slew of words! The branden misses! Ridicule does nothing to help your argument. I refuse to start adding X-Joke headers to point out the obvious :-P -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you can read this, you're too close.
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:59:33PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copyright file should have the license that applies to the work. Not a read the copyright file and apply this patch statement in the README file (or worse, in about.html on the author's website, or in an email message) Damn right. -- G. Branden Robinson| To be is to do -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | To do is to be -- Aristotle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do be do be do -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpXxIL6gfAsM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 12:51:51PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: Can you quote caselaw that demonstrates this to be the case? As far as I can remember, I've never heard of such a license with additional riders being litigated. [But then again, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in licenses.] I hope we can agree that the fact that such a license contains an internal contradiction is open to interpretation, and litigation (most likely) would have to ensue with an as of yet undetermined outcome. The acceptance of licenses into Debian with dubious legality and/or grants of permision is not something that we should coutenance lightly. [I know that if such a license were to cross my desk for a project that I was doing any serious work on, I would require clarification from legal counsel and most likely they would want to see some sort of clarification from the author as well.] IANAL either... at the moment I'm just trying to point out that the kind of construction we are talking about need not be inherently broken. In the simplest case, I agree that you could argue about the interpretation (clearly, we are doing so). I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it. It would then follow that the question becomes where do we draw the line? Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Excellent day to have a rotten day.
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I say that when one constructs at cut-and-paste licence, then the words this license obviously refers to the entire cut-and-paste license, regardless of from where those words entered the cut-and-paste license.=20 What do you mean by cut-and-paste? I mean a copyright statement at instructs the reader to do some cut-and-paste actions to find out the conditions for copying the work. No they can't. For at given work they always refers to the license covering that given work. ...whatever that is, which is ill-defined in many cases. I'm not talking about many cases. Good. Then perhaps you'll agree that saying This is licensed under the GPL with the additional restriction that is an invalid statement, because such a thing is not licensed under the GPL at all. I don't agree at all. The sentence does *not* say that the thing is licensed under the GPL. On the contrary, it says clearly, explicitly, and unambigously that the licening terms *differ* from the GPL. What do you mean by cut-and-paste? See above. Certainly if one hacks out the terms and conditions chunk from the GNU GPL and modifies it, one does not have something that it textually equivalent to the GNU GPL. It's quite obvious that one has something different. Yes. I have to reject your assertion that what happens when one constructs a cut-and-paste license is *textual* inclusion-by-reference. What happens when one constructs a cut-n-paste license is inclusion-by-value. Says who? You have demonstrated that the meaning breaks down if one tries to interpet it as inclusion of meaning. On the other hand, everything's well when it its interpreted as inclusion of text. What, then, makes you assert that it is the *unreasonable* interpretation that is right? In inclusion-by-reference, it's vague, and clause 6 of the referenced GNU GPL renders the work undistributable. When the *text* is included, clause 6 does not reference the GNU GPL anymore; it references the product of the inclusion. What do you mean by cut-and-paste license? See above. When I think of cut-and-paste, I think of visual operations that involve duplicating and reproducing text by means of a selection buffer. You seem to mean a pointer, inclusion-by-reference. The copyright statement we're discussing describes visual operations that involve duplicating and reproducing text by means of a selection buffer. I should note that, by far, most GPL-plus-added-restriction licenses that we've encountered on this mailing list have been inclusion by reference licenses. I.e., This is licensed under the GPL with the additional restriction that. I'm not sure what you mean by this notice. Sometimes copyright holders make utterances that cannot be rendered sensible, and/or have no meaning. Yes. But that is not the case in the case. The copyright notice we are discussing CAN be rendered sensible with a perfectly good meaning. You just, for reasons that I still don't understand, refuse to accept that rendering. You can copy and distribute this work under certain conditions. To find out what those conditions are, take the GNU GPL and add to it the requirement that you can't do baz. Nothing is being cut-and-pasted here. Not yet. But the text is an instruction that the reader should do some cut-and-pasting of his own. This is inclusion by reference. Yes. It includes a series of words by reference. It does not include their menings, because, as you have demonstrated, that would be inconsistent. To see what I mean, look at the GPL, which says, these terms and conditions, and quite obviously means the bit between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS -- *in the original license text of the GNU GPL itself*. Yes. But it does not say that you should try to *interpret* the words found between those two markers before you have done the changes that are described in the copyright statement. Add to it the requirement that you can't do baz? This license statement immediately falls over dead, killed by GNU GPL clause 6. No it doesn't. At this point in the process, clause 6 consists of a sequence of octets that receive no meaning until AFTER the new requirement has been added. Yes, of course, because your'e quoting a horrible way of doing it. It's *precisely* what you're asking me to do in my head with this virtualized cut-and-paste business. No. The result looks EXACTLY like: No. You forgot to add the restriction. You can copy and distribute this work under certain conditions. To find out what those conditions are, take the GNU GPL and add to it the requirement that you can't do baz. ,..is not it. It is at worst a logical contradiction, and at best undistributable even in non-free. It is not at all a logical contradiction, and it may even be distributable in main. Example: You can copy and
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] magical +3 sigh of hyperbole deflection The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a slew of words! The branden misses! Maybe Henning or I should package something really trivial with a license such as we are debating, just to make it completely obvious what we are talking about. IANADD, but I would discourage taking the number-of-strange-packages-that-the-poor-users-have-to-wade-through-in-dselect hostage to make a theoretical point. Let's keep some sense of proportions. -- Henning Makholm ... popping pussies into pies Wouldn't do in my shop just the thought of it's enough to make you sick and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ...
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it. Sure. I think most of us would agree that an unequivocally proper phrasing of such a construction is to rewrite the entire license. There may be less strenuous proper phrasings, but I can't think of one that addresses all of my concerns. It would then follow that the question becomes where do we draw the line? I think that's something that we will have to broach for each license that we discuss, until we get a good feel for it. I'd gather that most of us agree with additions that grant permisions, but a few of us are wary of additions that add restrictions. [I think some of the discussion regarding mplayer bears this out.] Don Armstrong -- Three little words. (In decending order of importance.) I love you -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpegqWyAEIvD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Don Armstrong said: On Thu, 22 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it. Sure. I think most of us would agree that an unequivocally proper phrasing of such a construction is to rewrite the entire license. There may be less strenuous proper phrasings, but I can't think of one that addresses all of my concerns. And, in fact, that rewritten license should be what's in /usr/share/doc/packagename/copyright, not the GNU GPL. The copyright file should have the license that applies to the work. Not a read the copyright file and apply this patch statement in the README file (or worse, in about.html on the author's website, or in an email message) --Joe
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:39:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I did not construct them. Which arguments? The ones IN MY MESSAGE! You keep saying they exist I keep giving them. Well, it is in the message to which I am now replying that I am first seeing most of them. But anyway... Okay, so you and Nick Phillips will cotton to the GNU GPL being a variable rather than a constant, Strawman. How so? You and Nick are claiming that the terms and conditions of the GNU GPL as applied to a work are not always the literal text of what lies between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, aren't you? I say that when one constructs at cut-and-paste licence, then the words this license obviously refers to the entire cut-and-paste license, regardless of from where those words entered the cut-and-paste license. What do you mean by cut-and-paste? And I think the wording of the GNU GPL terms and conditions section makes the location of the words very important, at least where additional restrictions are concerned. Thus, the terms and conditions -- even in written form -- of the GNU GPL as applied to a given work can vary, No they can't. For at given work they always refers to the license covering that given work. ...whatever that is, which is ill-defined in many cases. No, that's an incidental problem. My point is that whatever a license is that is the GNU GPL plus additional restrictions (consistent or not), it isn't the GNU GPL. That is true. Nobody is, as far as I am aware, disagreeing with that. Good. Then perhaps you'll agree that saying This is licensed under the GPL with the additional restriction that is an invalid statement, because such a thing is not licensed under the GPL at all. I'd say such a statement is unacceptably misleading. This is because the text of the GNU GPL is self-referential, and talks about these terms and conditions (clause 6). If one creates a new text by using the GNU GPL, the new text becomes self-referential too. It does not stay GPL-referential, because what happens when one constructs a cut-and-paste license is *textual* inclusion-by-reference. One does not include the *meaning* of the GPL; only its *text*. What do you mean by cut-and-paste? Certainly if one hacks out the terms and conditions chunk from the GNU GPL and modifies it, one does not have something that it textually equivalent to the GNU GPL. It's quite obvious that one has something different. I have to reject your assertion that what happens when one constructs a cut-and-paste license is *textual* inclusion-by-reference. What happens when one constructs a cut-n-paste license is inclusion-by-value. Whatever inclusion-by-reference is, (I have to assume it's This is licensed under the GPL with the additional restriction that) it certainly cannot be inclusion-by-value. In inclusion-by-value, the meaning of these terms and conditions is clear and unambiguous. In inclusion-by-reference, it's vague, and clause 6 of the referenced GNU GPL renders the work undistributable. What the author chooses and what he manages to express are not always in consistent harmony. Copyright licensees are bound first and foremost by the licensor's explicit terms and conditions. Licensees who operate under a gentlemen's agreement with the licensor in which they violate the literal terms of the license do so at their own peril. Exactly. And when an author specifies that the work is goverened by a cut-and-paste licence, then the text of said cut-and-paste license *is* the licensor's explicit terms and conditions. What do you mean by cut-and-paste license? When I think of cut-and-paste, I think of visual operations that involve duplicating and reproducing text by means of a selection buffer. You seem to mean a pointer, inclusion-by-reference. When I hear cut-and-paste license, I think inclusion by value. You seem to mean inclusion by reference. I should note that, by far, most GPL-plus-added-restriction licenses that we've encountered on this mailing list have been inclusion by reference licenses. I.e., This is licensed under the GPL with the additional restriction that. On the contrary, it is obvious that if an author knowingly and explicitly licenses is work under the conditions of the GNU GPL, with the following additional restrictions: [bla bla], then the author intends every occurence of THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS to refer to his entire combined license conditions. You're drawing an inference. It is not obvious. I think it cannot be more obvious. It is the only way to give the author's utterings any sensible meaning. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Sometimes
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:59:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Good. Then perhaps you'll agree that saying This is licensed under the GPL with the additional restriction that is an invalid statement, because such a thing is not licensed under the GPL at all. I think that you've misparsed it. It's not saying that it's licensed under the GPL, it's saying that it's licensed under the (terms of the GPL with the additional restriction that... ). This, to me, is as obvious and evident as the fact that the statement I eat only eggs and ham means that I eat both eggs and ham, but nothing else. What happens when one constructs a cut-n-paste license is inclusion-by-value. Whatever inclusion-by-reference is, (I have to assume it's This is licensed under the GPL with the additional restriction that) it certainly cannot be inclusion-by-value. In inclusion-by-value, the meaning of these terms and conditions is clear and unambiguous. In inclusion-by-reference, it's vague, and clause 6 of the referenced GNU GPL renders the work undistributable. No it doesn't. To me this seems a ridiculous interpretation. [snip] The result looks EXACTLY like: Copyright 2003 Joe Blow. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 1) You can do foo. 2) You can do bar. 3) You can do baz. 4) Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS Now what are you going to do with the overriding requirement that you can't do baz? Let's see... The result looks EXACTLY like: Copyright 2003 Joe Blow. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 1) You can do foo. 2) You can do bar. 3) Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS Or, in a murkier case, where the permission to do baz was joined to something else, or implicit in something else, something like: The result looks EXACTLY like: Copyright 2003 Joe Blow. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0) You may not do baz. This clause overrides and takes precedence over any subsequent contrary clauses. 1) You can do foo. 2) You can do bar and baz. 3) Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS license immediately falls over dead. The licensor has simultaneously told me I am allowed to do baz, and I am not allowed to do baz. NO HE HASN'T. See above. He needs to get his story straight, and this sort of garbage is not acceptable in Debian. Not main, not non-free, not anywhere. It's all rights reserved. When a licensor cannot even make a coherent statement of license, it is imprudent in the extreme to make assumptions about his intentions. magical +3 sigh of hyperbole deflection Maybe Henning or I should package something really trivial with a license such as we are debating, just to make it completely obvious what we are talking about. At least then we'd have something concrete to talk about. I might do that if I find some time somewhere. As I said before: when the GNU GPL says this License and herein, these terms are not variables. They are constants. They always and forever will refer to the terms and conditions laid out within the same document. It is not semantically possible for a different meaning to be superimposed on these words without changing the content, and thus the identity, of the document. You can define a dog to be a cat if it pleases you -- as indeed some gentlemen's club does (No dogs. For the purposes of these rules, a dog leading a blind person shall be deemed to be a cat... or similar). As a matter of policy, I think it is prudent to discourage licensors from riding on the back of the GPL's success and goodwill by misleading people as to both the license's freeness
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As I said before: when the GNU GPL says this License and herein, these terms are not variables. They are constants. They always and forever will refer to the terms and conditions laid out within the same document. Perhaps GPLv3 should solve this ambiguity by being a quine. Edmund
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: Now what are you going to do with the overriding requirement that you can't do baz? Let's see... The result looks EXACTLY like: Copyright 2003 Joe Blow. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 1) You can do foo. 2) You can do bar. 3) Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS Can you quote caselaw that demonstrates this to be the case? As far as I can remember, I've never heard of such a license with additional riders being litigated. [But then again, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in licenses.] I hope we can agree that the fact that such a license contains an internal contradiction is open to interpretation, and litigation (most likely) would have to ensue with an as of yet undetermined outcome. The acceptance of licenses into Debian with dubious legality and/or grants of permision is not something that we should coutenance lightly. [I know that if such a license were to cross my desk for a project that I was doing any serious work on, I would require clarification from legal counsel and most likely they would want to see some sort of clarification from the author as well.] Don Armstrong -- There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Bach http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpV8A2riBWh1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:46:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Digging in the archives turns up that it has not always been you who made the false claim that GPL+more restrictions is necessarily internally inconsistent. I apologize for implying that. Calling it a false claim is overreaching given that you've never actually constructed an argument illustrating its falsity. I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I did not construct them. Which arguments? You keep saying they exist, and keep failing to cite them, whether by reference or inclusion. Okay, so you and Nick Phillips will cotton to the GNU GPL being a variable rather than a constant, Strawman. How so? You and Nick are claiming that the terms and conditions of the GNU GPL as applied to a work are not always the literal text of what lies between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, aren't you? Thus, the terms and conditions -- even in written form -- of the GNU GPL as applied to a given work can vary, even when the written text between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS does not in fact change. Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear and possibly inconsistent ways. No, that's an incidental problem. My point is that whatever a license is that is the GNU GPL plus additional restrictions (consistent or not), it isn't the GNU GPL. This in no way entails that *every* set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms must be unclear and inconsistent. Where the set includes restrictions on activity not enumerated between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, that's correct. This is because the text of the GNU GPL is self-referential, and talks about these terms and conditions (clause 6). [I have asserted that the way most people add restrictions to the GNU GPL] -- at least in cases that have come to my attention via the debian-legal list -- results in a license that is internally inconsistent, and thus impossible to satisfy while exercising one's traditional freedoms with a copyleft. Even here, you seem to argue that because the way most people add restrictions is wrong, and often internally inconsistent - which I do not deny, mind you - it is impossible to add restrictions. If they were to modify the GPL text, they could achieve what they desire in a (potentially) self-consistent way. Most people don't bother to do this. Observation One --- The scope of the terms and conditions, a.k.a. restrictions, is clearly defined by the text of the GNU GPL. Any restrictions beyond that are forbidden by section six. Section six has absolutely no power over how an individual, sole, author may or may not chose to license his work. What the author chooses and what he manages to express are not always in consistent harmony. Copyright licensees are bound first and foremost by the licensor's explicit terms and conditions. Licensees who operate under a gentlemen's agreement with the licensor in which they violate the literal terms of the license do so at their own peril. I do not think the Debian Project should encourage its users to assume that they are the beneficiaries of a gentlemen's agreement with the licensor, when no such agreement was actually formed. It is obvious to me that THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS is meant to refer to the text between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS. No. Well, then, I suspect we have an unbridgeable gulf here. On the contrary, it is obvious that if an author knowingly and explicitly licenses is work under the conditions of the GNU GPL, with the following additional restrictions: [bla bla], then the author intends every occurence of THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS to refer to his entire combined license conditions. You're drawing an inference. It is not obvious. When an author uses the GNU GPL, he is speaking with his own voice, not the Free Software Foundation's. When an author says to me: Copyright 2003 Joe Blow. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 1) You can do foo. 2) You can do bar. 3) You can do baz. 4) Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I did not construct them. Which arguments? The ones IN MY MESSAGE! You keep saying they exist I keep giving them. Okay, so you and Nick Phillips will cotton to the GNU GPL being a variable rather than a constant, Strawman. How so? You and Nick are claiming that the terms and conditions of the GNU GPL as applied to a work are not always the literal text of what lies between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, aren't you? I say that when one constructs at cut-and-paste licence, then the words this license obviously refers to the entire cut-and-paste license, regardless of from where those words entered the cut-and-paste license. Thus, the terms and conditions -- even in written form -- of the GNU GPL as applied to a given work can vary, No they can't. For at given work they always refers to the license covering that given work. No, that's an incidental problem. My point is that whatever a license is that is the GNU GPL plus additional restrictions (consistent or not), it isn't the GNU GPL. That is true. Nobody is, as far as I am aware, disagreeing with that. This is because the text of the GNU GPL is self-referential, and talks about these terms and conditions (clause 6). If one creates a new text by using the GNU GPL, the new text becomes self-referential too. It does not stay GPL-referential, because what happens when one constructs a cut-and-paste license is *textual* inclusion-by-reference. One does not include the *meaning* of the GPL; only its *text*. What the author chooses and what he manages to express are not always in consistent harmony. Copyright licensees are bound first and foremost by the licensor's explicit terms and conditions. Licensees who operate under a gentlemen's agreement with the licensor in which they violate the literal terms of the license do so at their own peril. Exactly. And when an author specifies that the work is goverened by a cut-and-paste licence, then the text of said cut-and-paste license *is* the licensor's explicit terms and conditions. On the contrary, it is obvious that if an author knowingly and explicitly licenses is work under the conditions of the GNU GPL, with the following additional restrictions: [bla bla], then the author intends every occurence of THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS to refer to his entire combined license conditions. You're drawing an inference. It is not obvious. I think it cannot be more obvious. It is the only way to give the author's utterings any sensible meaning. When an author says to me: But that is a bad example. What the author is saying to you is You can copy and distribute this work under certain conditions. To find out what those conditions are, take the GNU GPL and add to it the requirement that you can't do baz. ..then I become confused because he is simultaneously telling me I can and cannot do baz. Yes, of course, because your'e quoting a horrible way of doing it. As far as I'm concerned, this discussions is still not about is there a horrible way of doing this? but is there a valid way of doing it?. Observation Three - The FSF does not want people forking the GPL, and think that license proliferation is a bad thing. This is true, but it does nothing to argue that a fork would be internally inconsistent. And I have not made such an argument. Then I don't see why we are arguing at all? People can fork the terms and conditions of GNU GPL all they want as far as I'm concerned, but if they create a license document that is self-contradictory Since you have not made such an argument [that a cut-and-paste license is self-contradictory], then what's the point? However, in practice, most people don't do what the FSF recommends in their FAQ. They just say it's under the GPL and slap extra restrictions somewhere else -- perhaps in a README file. Which I can easily agree is internally inconsistent and may make the work undistributable. Okay. You can easily agree -- but you're not going to??? I *am* agreeing that the particular practise you describe is internally inconsistent. I do not agree that this is also the case for every *other* way of creating a (non-free) licence by adding restrictions to the GPL. But this still does not mean that adding additional restrictions is OF NECESSITY internally inconsistent. It is if they use the GNU GPL's terms and conditions as-is. I'm not talking about cases where people use the GNU GPL's terms and conditions as-is. I'm talking about cases where people *explicitly* do *not* use them as-is, but only as an expository aid for describing what they mean. The words you used were || Debian interprets this
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 08:35, Henning Makholm wrote: Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear and possibly inconsistent ways. This in no way entails that *every* set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms must be unclear and inconsistent. Allow me to yell straw man! back to you, then, please. I don't argue that. Certainly you didn't. I was speaking to Branden. Instead I argue that using the FSF GPL boiler plate, Foo is free software; you can..., and then at the bottom tacking on additional restrictions is inconsistent. That would depend on one's concrete interpretation of what free software means. I agree that the licensing will only be consistent if the extra restrictions are mentioned explicitly in the same sentence that refers to the GPL. Even here, you seem to argue that because the way most people add restrictions is wrong, and often internally inconsistent - which I do not deny, mind you - it is impossible to add restrictions. I'm not sure how to reconcile it is impossible to add restrictions with later portions of your message, snipped. Please clarify. It was the conclusion to the because earlier in the sentence. Sure there is. Modify the license, and call it something else. Snip off the FSF spiel around it. Just like the GPL FAQ says. I don't see how the very same license terms can be considered consistent if they are given explicitly but inconsistent if they are given as (unambigous) instructions for how to assemble the text from the GPL plus other matter. I hope all of us here agree that ASlL must be evaluated for freeness on its own merits: If as a whole ASlL meets the guidelines, it is free; if not, is is non-free. Agreed. On the contrary, I think it is the honest way to go about it, rather than reproducing the entire load of legalese as the Foobar Public License and hiding the incriminating restrictions in the midst of vaguely-familiar licensing text that nobody is going to read closely anyway because it just looks like a revamped GPL anyway. It won't look at all like the GPL because it won't have the FSF preamble, and will call itself by a different name. *In practise* it will look very much like GPL to the fine people on debian-legal who read licenses and try to find out wheter they are free or not. The incriminating restrictions will be much easier to find if they are spelled out explicitly as differences from the GPL than if we have to do a visual diff ourselves to hunt them down. -- Henning Makholm Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit.
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 08:35, Henning Makholm wrote: Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear and possibly inconsistent ways. This in no way entails that *every* set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms must be unclear and inconsistent. Allow me to yell straw man! back to you, then, please. I don't argue that. Instead I argue that using the FSF GPL boiler plate, Foo is free software; you can..., and then at the bottom tacking on additional restrictions is inconsistent. I also argue that similar constructions are inconsistent. So, we might be agreeing here: Even here, you seem to argue that because the way most people add restrictions is wrong, and often internally inconsistent - which I do not deny, mind you - it is impossible to add restrictions. I'm not sure how to reconcile it is impossible to add restrictions with later portions of your message, snipped. Please clarify. || Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the || conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no || less. which does not seem to me to acknowledge that there is a right way to add extra restrictions. (Right as in probably legally sound, not right as in free). Sure there is. Modify the license, and call it something else. Snip off the FSF spiel around it. Just like the GPL FAQ says. If I distribute software under a hypothetical Anthony's Silly-like License (ASlL), which just happens to very closely resemble the GPL, I hope all of us here agree that ASlL must be evaluated for freeness on its own merits: If as a whole ASlL meets the guidelines, it is free; if not, is is non-free. But I still do not think you have offered any convincing arguments that GPL with the following additional restrictions: [blah blah] is a bad name to rename it to. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL I guess you'd be fine as long as you remove the FSF preamble and change the instructions at the end. Not sure what license the preamble and instructions are under; essentially, the preamble is the FSF's endorsement of the GPL, I doubt they'd like it on an almost-GPL license unless they gave permission. On the contrary, I think it is the honest way to go about it, rather than reproducing the entire load of legalese as the Foobar Public License and hiding the incriminating restrictions in the midst of vaguely-familiar licensing text that nobody is going to read closely anyway because it just looks like a revamped GPL anyway. It won't look at all like the GPL because it won't have the FSF preamble, and will call itself by a different name. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't share my position, that's fine, but you haven't yet articulated why. I have. Multiple times. Someone using your name and imitating your style of writing rather convincingly have replied to several of those postings. Digging in the archives turns up that it has not always been you who made the false claim that GPL+more restrictions is necessarily internally inconsistent. I apologize for implying that. I point you to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199912/msg00231.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200210/msg00093.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00025.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg7.html and (not by me but arguing the same point) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg0.html Please address the arguments in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html Your core argument in that message is | However, in practice, most people don't do what the FSF recommends in | their FAQ. They just say it's under the GPL and slap extra | restrictions somewhere else -- perhaps in a README file. I am completely unconvinced by your tacit leap from most people do this wrong to it is impossible to do it right, and Debian always interprets even cases where it is done right as non-distributable. -- Henning Makholm Slip den panserraket og læg dig på jorden med ansigtet nedad!
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:46:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Digging in the archives turns up that it has not always been you who made the false claim that GPL+more restrictions is necessarily internally inconsistent. I apologize for implying that. Calling it a false claim is overreaching given that you've never actually constructed an argument illustrating its falsity. I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I did not construct them. Okay, so you and Nick Phillips will cotton to the GNU GPL being a variable rather than a constant, Strawman. I am completely unconvinced by your tacit leap from most people do this wrong to it is impossible to do it right, and Debian always interprets even cases where it is done right as non-distributable. This is refutation by assertion. You haven't addressed my points at all. Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear and possibly inconsistent ways. This in no way entails that *every* set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms must be unclear and inconsistent. [I have asserted that the way most people add restrictions to the GNU GPL] -- at least in cases that have come to my attention via the debian-legal list -- results in a license that is internally inconsistent, and thus impossible to satisfy while exercising one's traditional freedoms with a copyleft. Even here, you seem to argue that because the way most people add restrictions is wrong, and often internally inconsistent - which I do not deny, mind you - it is impossible to add restrictions. Observation One --- The scope of the terms and conditions, a.k.a. restrictions, is clearly defined by the text of the GNU GPL. Any restrictions beyond that are forbidden by section six. Section six has absolutely no power over how an individual, sole, author may or may not chose to license his work. It is obvious to me that THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS is meant to refer to the text between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS. No. On the contrary, it is obvious that if an author knowingly and explicitly licenses is work under the conditions of the GNU GPL, with the following additional restrictions: [bla bla], then the author intends every occurence of THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS to refer to his entire combined license conditions. Observation Two --- The FSF claims copyright in the text of the GPL itself, and does not extend permission to anyone to modify it. Actually, the FSF does permit people to use the legal language in the GPL as the baseline of other licenses (see your own quote from the GPL FAQ below). They will not like it, and they will call people who do it nasty names, but they do not claim the legal power to prevent it. Therefore, making modifications to the area between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS might be considered by the FSF as an infringement of their copyright in the text of the GNU GPL. Wrong (see above, and below). But even if *making* the modifications were illegal, it is beyond the powers of the FSF to forbid people to *imagine* modifications, and use such imagination as a succint way to describe their own licensing terms. Observation Three - The FSF does not want people forking the GPL, and think that license proliferation is a bad thing. This is true, but it does nothing to argue that a fork would be internally inconsistent. Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Note this excerpt from your own FSF quote. However, in practice, most people don't do what the FSF recommends in their FAQ. They just say it's under the GPL and slap extra restrictions somewhere else -- perhaps in a README file. Which I can easily agree is internally inconsistent and may make the work undistributable. But this still does not mean that adding additional restrictions is OF NECESSITY internally inconsistent. It is this practice that I call internally inconsistent, The words you used were || Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the || conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no || less. which does not seem to me to acknowledge that there is a right way to add extra restrictions. (Right as in probably legally sound, not right as in free). And, of course, even if one feels that this isn't a problem, there is *still* the issue of incompatibility with all other GPLed works in the world. I do not deny this. But an incompatible license can still be *internally* consistent. I therefore think it's a good idea for people
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. s/Debian/Branden Robinson/ I hadn't noticed any objections to my analysis, The message to which I am referring is: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html The message to which *I* was referring was the one I quoted, which asserted that Debian does *in general* not recognize the possiblity of licensing a work under a patched-together license that consists of GPL plus additional restrictions (where this License is implicitly or explicitly understood to be interpreted to include the additional restrictions). -- Henning Makholm What has it got in its pocketses?
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 03:58:36PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. s/Debian/Branden Robinson/ I hadn't noticed any objections to my analysis, The message to which I am referring is: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html The message to which *I* was referring was the one I quoted, which asserted that Debian does *in general* not recognize the possiblity of licensing a work under a patched-together license that consists of GPL plus additional restrictions (where this License is implicitly or explicitly understood to be interpreted to include the additional restrictions). The message to which *you* were referring was a brief recapitulation, by me, of a longer and more comprehensive analysis, also by me, in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html. If you don't share my position, that's fine, but you haven't yet articulated why. Please address the arguments in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html so that I can understand your perspective, and so that I can think of some grounds other than contrarianism for people on this list to feel that my position shouldn't be representative of the group. (I am accustomed to people hollering when I forward an argument that people find objectionable, which didn't happen in the case of http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html.) -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpUf6msaQDBC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:20:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. s/Debian/Branden Robinson/ I hadn't noticed any objections to my analysis, Well, good job then that you managed to reply to mine. (Don't have the archive link with me right now, but will dig). The message to which I am referring is: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html While I agree with that post in general, I don't think it's germane to the case of PHP-Nuke. The PHP-Nuke author claims that the requirement to display the footer is built into the GPL (clause 2c); a license clarification, however bizarre, is not the same thing as an additional restriction. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp026xCrs0ZV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 11:17:40AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html While I agree with that post in general, I don't think it's germane to the case of PHP-Nuke. The PHP-Nuke author claims that the requirement to display the footer is built into the GPL (clause 2c); a license clarification, however bizarre, is not the same thing as an additional restriction. Then what does he need that README for? -- G. Branden Robinson|Damnit, we're all going to die; Debian GNU/Linux |let's die doing something *useful*! [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Hal Clement, on comments that http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous pgp6NjxkzSXhl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. s/Debian/Branden Robinson/ I hadn't noticed any objections to my analysis, Well, good job then that you managed to reply to mine. (Don't have the archive link with me right now, but will dig). -- Henning Makholm Jeg forstår mig på at anvende sådanne midler på folks legemer, at jeg kan varme eller afkøle dem, som jeg vil, og få dem til at kaste op, hvis det er det, jeg vil, eller give afføring og meget andet af den slags.
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. s/Debian/Branden Robinson/ I hadn't noticed any objections to my analysis, Well, good job then that you managed to reply to mine. (Don't have the archive link with me right now, but will dig). The message to which I am referring is: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html -- G. Branden Robinson|One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux |belly laugh. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpq1jXZjAY7L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: The copyright holder of a work is free to license the work under the terms of his choosing. Although the PHP-Nuke author has stated the work is under the GPL, he imposes the additional restriction (one which we believe is NOT part of the GPL normally) to display credits on every web page output by the software. As such, the consensus on debian-legal is that PHP-Nuke does not comply with the DFSG and should not be included in Debian's main archive. This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional restriction created, in our opinion, a license that was impossible to satisfy. Sections 6 and 7 of the GNU GPL say: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. We interpreted the PHP-Nuke author's additional restriction as just that, with the consequences you'd expect from the above. In our assessment, PHP-Nuke isn't licensed to the public at all (as far as we can tell), and we cannot distribute it -- even in our non-free archive. -- G. Branden Robinson|Build a fire for a man, and he'll Debian GNU/Linux |be warm for a day. Set a man on [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fire, and he'll be warm for the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett pgptXYIljlCDl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional restriction created, in our opinion, a license that was impossible to satisfy. I thought that the reason was that the combined license is simply not free, even if one interprets it in a self-consistent way. Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. s/Debian/Branden Robinson/ -- Henning Makholm Det er du nok fandens ene om at mene. For det ligger i Australien!
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional restriction created, in our opinion, a license that was impossible to satisfy. I thought that the reason was that the combined license is simply not free, even if one interprets it in a self-consistent way. Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. s/Debian/Branden Robinson/ Quite. I don't believe there was any consensus that the license was inconsistent, just that it was a) non-free, and b) not compatible with other GPL software. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp5IaFwrAn5H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional restriction created, in our opinion, a license that was impossible to satisfy. I thought that the reason was that the combined license is simply not free, even if one interprets it in a self-consistent way. That may be, but I think we should be conservative in our rulings. We don't have to address the issue of whether the putative license is DFSG-free if the work in question is de facto not licensed at all. Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less. s/Debian/Branden Robinson/ I hadn't noticed any objections to my analysis, so I assumed people were at least moderately comfortable with it. If that's not the case, please refresh my memory, or present a critique now. -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpTFUVAfin9l.pgp Description: PGP signature
PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Hello, I found the thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00164.html regarding the licensing information on PHP-Nuke. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a conclusion/consensus on the issue. As an end user of this program, can anyone tell me if this program qualifies as Free Software? I do not wish to spew out a powered by PHP-Nuke footer on every page. I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the GPL at all. I wish to display credits on a seperate page on my site, not as a footer on every page. Am I allowed to do this? Is the PHP-Nuke author allowed to force the users to display messages on all their web pages? I will move to a different CMS if this is the case. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Hi Ron, On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 12:26:34PM -0400, Ron wrote: I found the thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00164.html regarding the licensing information on PHP-Nuke. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a conclusion/consensus on the issue. As an end user of this program, can anyone tell me if this program qualifies as Free Software? I do not wish to spew out a powered by PHP-Nuke footer on every page. I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the GPL at all. I wish to display credits on a seperate page on my site, not as a footer on every page. Am I allowed to do this? Is the PHP-Nuke author allowed to force the users to display messages on all their web pages? I will move to a different CMS if this is the case. Thank you for your time and assistance. The copyright holder of a work is free to license the work under the terms of his choosing. Although the PHP-Nuke author has stated the work is under the GPL, he imposes the additional restriction (one which we believe is NOT part of the GPL normally) to display credits on every web page output by the software. As such, the consensus on debian-legal is that PHP-Nuke does not comply with the DFSG and should not be included in Debian's main archive. To the question of whether the PHP-Nuke author is able to impose this restriction, that question can be rephrased as: is he the exclusive copyright holder? If he is, he can license it however he wants. If he isn't, he may be infringing the copyright of the other copyright holders by releasing the work under this modified GPL. This seems to be an open question at present. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpQsLRMpfj6q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Thank you Steve. That helps greatly. I don't believe he is the sole copyright holder, but I can not state that with 100% certainty. I will look into using a different system. Best regards, Ron
