Re: License question for new package

2009-10-17 Thread Miriam Ruiz
Hi,

Have a look at this part: With the exception of content with an
individual readme file, all
content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
distribution. It is not even valid for non-free without an special permission.

My approach for this package was to package te game engine and the
lite game data set (free) into main, and then add the extended data
set, with permission, to non-free.

Greetings,
Miry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: License question for new package

2009-10-17 Thread Ben Finney
Scott Howard showard...@gmail.com writes:

 Hello - I'm packaging something new that has a custom license, and I'd
 an official opinion as to which repo it can go it:

Thank you for your attention to this topic, and for quoting the license
text here for inspection.

Overall, the language is poor for a description of terms and conditions,
with many conditions phrased in passive voice (“foo will be
frobnicated”) instead of making the subject explicit (“you must
frobnicate foo”). This makes it difficult to know who is to be
responsible for doing what.

Nothing in the text you've shown here *grants* any permissions; it is
essentially a big list of “this must be done” and “that must not be
done”. Without explicit grant of license to copy, modify, redistribute,
etc., the default restrictions of copyright still apply and the work
remains trivially non-free.

 1. This notice may not be removed or altered from any distribution.

No problems, requirement to preserve license terms is not a non-free
restriction.

 2. The Cube 2 license located in /src must be read and abided by as
 well. The Cube 2 license only pertains to the original Cube 2 source
 and not to any Platinum Arts LLC additions/modifications.

This appears to make the license terms a union between this document and
some other document. Unfortunately, those terms are given at a URL:

 The cube2 license they refer to is:

 Moviecube is a Machinima tool based on the Sauerbraten game engine,
 both of which are covered under the ZLIB license. You may use the
 source code so long as you obey this license, for further information
 see:

   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

The terms should be part of the work so they can be inspected at any
time in the future regardless of access to that URL or whether its
contents remain the same.


 3. If you use Platinum Arts Sandbox to make a project please be sure
 to contact Platinum Arts LLC and provide information about the
 project. Also be sure to clearly credit Platinum Arts Sandbox on your
 webpage, software and documentation.

Lawyerbomb: Dangerously vague “use” term; if they mean copy, modify,
redistribute, etc. this doesn't make it clear.

Obnoxious advertising requirement: IMO this restriction makes the work
non-free for the same reasons the similar requirement in the original
BSD license makes a work non-free.

 Your code must remain open to Platinum Arts LLC and available for use
 in Platinum Arts Sandbox to help further the project.

Again, what “use” means here is not defined. Lawyerbomb.

 4. With the exception of content with an individual readme file, any
 content submitted for inclusion in Platinum Arts Sandbox becomes
 property of Platinum Arts LLC. Authors of the content will be credited
 and they can use their work in other projects.

This seems to be an attempt to circumvent the copyright on derived
works. I have no idea what jurisdictions would even recognise this grab;
regardless, to the extent it's effective, it makes the work non-free to
require surrendering copyright in one's own work.

 5. With the exception of content with an individual readme file, all
 content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
 distribution. In other words if you want to use Platinum Arts Sandbox
 maps or other content in another software projects, please ask first.

Lawyerbomb: What does “all content” mean here? Is it intended to cover
derived works? A similar attempt at copyright circumvention with the
same problems as above.

 6. This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
 warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
 or any other problems arising from the use of this software.

No problems; a custom disclaimer of warranty, which doesn't put any
non-free restrictions on the recipient.

 7. NOTE TO EDUCATORS - If you use this software in an educational
 setting please send us an e-mail
[…]

Appears to be a request, so doesn't appear to affect recipient's freedom
in the work. Doesn't belong in a license text, and should be moved
elsewhere.

 8.  Any questions or concerns about this license should be directed to
 platinuma...@gmail.com

Also doesn't really belong as a numbered item in a license text.

 I have written permission to package this for Debian and all Debian
 derivatives.

Thank you for seeking that, but it's unfortunately not enough. DFSG §8
requires the license to not be specific to the work remaining part of a
Debian system. All recipients of Debian must be free to exercise the
full license in the work regardless of whether the work remains part of
Debian.

 Is this a non-free program or could it fit into main?

In summary: this isn't even a license, it's a set of restrictions. It
grants no permissions to copy, modify, redistribute, etc., so the work
remains non-free (per default copyright restrictions).

Even if those permissions were granted, the restrictions are poorly
phrased with several lawyerbombs 

Re: License question for new package

2009-10-17 Thread Scott Howard
Thanks Miry for the reply!

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote:
 Have a look at this part: With the exception of content with an
 individual readme file, all
 content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
 distribution. It is not even valid for non-free without an special 
 permission.

So if I have permission to package for inclusion in Debian, I am able
to package the entire extended set and engine into non-free? It seems
like they aren't putting much effort into making it free (or keeping
up with the debian free package you got them to do), so I'm thinking
of just taking what they give and put it as non-free until they start
releasing free stuff since we have permission to package it for
Debian. I'm working on sandboxgamemaker which would include all the
game mode binaries, the server binaries, and extended package set.

does that make sense?
Thank you for your help.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: License question for new package

2009-10-17 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 01:23:26PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
 
 Obnoxious advertising requirement: IMO this restriction makes the work
 non-free for the same reasons the similar requirement in the original
 BSD license makes a work non-free.

Hello everybody,

works licenced with advertisement clauses are accepted in Debian by our archive
administrators.

See for instance 
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/j/jhdf/jhdf_2.5-3/libjhdf5-jni.copyright

Have a nice Sunday,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org