Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: Hello Florent, you can decouple the two issues: - The package is totally redistributable in Debian as it is, you do not need to relicense the files to update to the new upstream release. - You can work on the resolving the apparent contradiction at the pace you want, you can even consider it a wishlist, “patch welcome” issue only. Sounds like reasonable advice. I followed that, thank you. Have a nice week-end, Same to you, bye -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87bnpapdh4@frougon.crabdance.com
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Hi, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: I've been a primary proponent of that point of view, and I think it's probably correct. But I wouldn't claim it's *established*; no qualified legal expert has said anything so definite here, I believe. OK, I see. [...] I wouldn't want to assert whether a judge might consider some work too trivial to be covered by copyright. If you think it's an easy task, it's certainly safer to replace them if you want to relicense. Sure. But there are also established examples of successfully relicensing works without getting explicit permission from every copyright holder of every portion of the work. So that's an option to explore also. That's, uh... interesting. What were the conditions exactly? Is it that some contributors could not be reached and it was assumed they wouldn't disagree? Or maybe the copyright was assigned in some vague way such as the *** team or the participants to the *** mailing-list?.. Thanks to all four for your answers, have a nice weekend! -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/877fzypcpn@frougon.crabdance.com
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright): Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes: It has been established by the mavens from this list that the copyright statements contradict the public domain assertion, and that simply stating This program is in the public domain is not enough to make it so in general. I've been a primary proponent of that point of view, and I think it's probably correct. But I wouldn't claim it's *established*; no qualified legal expert has said anything so definite here, I believe. I disagree with Ben. The question of freeness is a question of practical capacity, not a theoretical exercise. We should be asking: can our users and downstreams exercise the freedoms we want them to have, without taking significant risks ? Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable — Are you aware of _any_ case where a piece of software was released with a statement from its copyrightholders saying it was public domain, but where later the copyrightholders reneged on the implied permissions ? Note that even copyrightholders who use proper Free copyright licences sometimes make legally unfounded claims against us or our downstreams. Empirically I would be very surprised if the risk from legally-naive copyrightholders, who try to `put things in the public domain', was greater than the risk from copyrightholders who issue proper licences. We're not talking about a situation where the whole thing might be a deliberate trap. If someone like IBM or Oracle came out with a `public domain' statement we should be very suspicious - but that's not (ever) what we're dealing with. And all of this is before we get into questions of estoppel (or its equivalent in various jurisdictions). especially because it's quite easy for the copyright holder to correctly apply a known simple free-software license that grants all the relevant permissions. I don't see how it allegedly being `easy' to fix increases the risk to Debian and our users and downstreams. It's totally irrelevant. And, of course, it's not true. Licensing decisions are political decisons, and often contested. Issues which mix politics and legal technicalities in this way are not `easy'. By `easy' you mean `easy if you do what I say'. But putting forward such an opinion in a political context is at the very least arrogant and can appear disingenuous. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21563.57745.843454.962...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable — In addition to what Ian said, Debian already accepts Public Domain software, even though public domain is completely meaningless in some jurisdictions. Are you aware of _any_ case where a piece of software was released with a statement from its copyrightholders saying it was public domain, but where later the copyrightholders reneged on the implied permissions ? Note that even copyrightholders who use proper Free copyright licences sometimes make legally unfounded claims against us or our downstreams. Empirically I would be very surprised if the risk from legally-naive copyrightholders, who try to `put things in the public domain', was greater than the risk from copyrightholders who issue proper licences. We're not talking about a situation where the whole thing might be a deliberate trap. If someone like IBM or Oracle came out with a `public domain' statement we should be very suspicious - but that's not (ever) what we're dealing with. And all of this is before we get into questions of estoppel (or its equivalent in various jurisdictions). Theoretically, this could fail the Tentacles of Evil test. Although I think that the estoppel defense would be enough to stop this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543c2dec.10...@bitmessage.ch
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright): Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable — Are you aware of _any_ case where a piece of software was released with a statement from its copyrightholders saying it was public domain, but where later the copyrightholders reneged on the implied permissions ? I'm not. But we are both well aware of cases where a later, *different* copyright holder makes an already-distributed work non-free by taking advantage of unclear or contradictory terms in that work's copyright status. We're not talking about a situation where the whole thing might be a deliberate trap. If someone like IBM or Oracle came out with a `public domain' statement we should be very suspicious - but that's not (ever) what we're dealing with. The copyright holder can change. If Oracle or IBM acquire copyright in the work, does that count as “coming out with” a public domain statement? I'd say that question doesn't much matter. What does matter in that case is that the work would simultaneously have a past assertion of public domain status, and also lack a clear grant of license. That's a situation to avoid, and we can't avoid the future copyright acquisition; we can only avoid accepting that work without clear grant of copyright license in the first place. [the risk is unacceptable] especially because it's quite easy for the copyright holder to correctly apply a known simple free-software license that grants all the relevant permissions. I don't see how it allegedly being `easy' to fix increases the risk to Debian and our users and downstreams. The risk isn't increased, it stays the same. The risk becomes less acceptable, because it's quite easy to avoid: just apply a known-enforcible widely-understood free software license. -- \ “Anyone who puts a small gloss on [a] fundamental technology, | `\ calls it proprietary, and then tries to keep others from | _o__) building on it, is a thief.” —Tim O'Reilly, 2000-01-25 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85mw8zy5a9@benfinney.id.au
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Le Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 06:50:49PM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit : [ Remainder: this thread is about a file whose copyright/licensing statement is of the form: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. It has been established by the mavens from this list that the copyright statements contradict the public domain assertion, and that simply stating This program is in the public domain is not enough to make it so in general. As a consequence, I am trying to have the file relicensed under a proper license such as BSD-2 or BSD-3. I have also taken note of the suggestions given here about the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 (which I am still considering) and the CC-0, thank you. ] Sorry for the little delay. I have recently tried to contact the person who is most likely, appart from me, to legitimately own some copyright over the file in question in this thread, namely demo.py from pythondialog (python-dialog in Debian). This person has been friendly in the past, there is no problem on this side, however time is pressing because of the imminent freeze of jessie and I am therefore considering the other alternative. Hello Florent, you can decouple the two issues: - The package is totally redistributable in Debian as it is, you do not need to relicense the files to update to the new upstream release. - You can work on the resolving the apparent contradiction at the pace you want, you can even consider it a wishlist, “patch welcome” issue only. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141011003846.ga14...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes: It has been established by the mavens from this list that the copyright statements contradict the public domain assertion, and that simply stating This program is in the public domain is not enough to make it so in general. I've been a primary proponent of that point of view, and I think it's probably correct. But I wouldn't claim it's *established*; no qualified legal expert has said anything so definite here, I believe. Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable — especially because it's quite easy for the copyright holder to correctly apply a known simple free-software license that grants all the relevant permissions. So, under the assumption that I don't hear from the original author soon enough, is it necessary to artificially rewrite these examples to use different English sentences, or are the original parts too trivial to be copyrightable in the first place? I wouldn't want to assert whether a judge might consider some work too trivial to be covered by copyright. If you think it's an easy task, it's certainly safer to replace them if you want to relicense. But there are also established examples of successfully relicensing works without getting explicit permission from every copyright holder of every portion of the work. So that's an option to explore also. Thanks for taking the time to read me! I hope you can get a legally-qualified opinion to help you with these questions. Thank you for taking seriously the legal freedom of Debian recipients. -- \ “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our | `\ inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter | _o__)the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams, 1770-12-04 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85y4snsa45@benfinney.id.au
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Thank you for your replies. It's a pity that properly releasing something in the public domain is apparently so difficult. The intent here was to make sure that anyone be free to copy anything from this file and use it in derivative works without restriction since it is a demo for a library. Unfortunately, as I feared and you confirmed, the licensing statement is technically incorrect. So, it would be better, and probably possible, to relicense. I thank you for the suggestions of the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 and CC-0. However, both of these licenses are a pain to read for normal human beings, even if other very common licenses are much worse in this respect (and I know debian-legal readers like such mumbo-jumbo :-). For this reason, I am more inclined to consider using BSD-2, BSD-3 or WTFPL (yes, I know the license can only be changed with permission of all copyright holders). Thanks and regards -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87a95yy3np@frougon.crabdance.com
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Le Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:11AM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit : 1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... right? Would it be better to replace this with: # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. ? 2. With the following stanza in debian/copyright (DEP-5): Files: examples/* License: public-domain I get two lintian warnings, the first of which being missing-field-in-dep5-copyright for the Copyright field IIRC, and the second one being 'missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright public-domain'. Dear Florent, for the first point, please do not modify the upstream copyright statements unless you have the permission from the authors: it is more likely to create new confusions than to clarify the situation. For the entry in the machine-readable copyright file, since the information available suggests that the authors claim a copyright, I would just consider that “This program is in the public domain.” is the license of the file: Files: examples/* Copyright: (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 author A (C) 2000 author B License: says-public-domain This program is in the public domain. Not elegant, but accurate. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140916100412.gc2...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes: 1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... right? Right. The quoted statement is self-contradictory. It asserts copyright, and gives no grounds for the “public domain” claim. It also fails to grant license for any of the DFSG freedoms. So by strict interpretation of the statement in view of rigid application of copyright law, the work is effectively non-free software. Would it be better to replace this with: # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. ? Even in the absence of a copyright statement, copyright still obtains in any Berne Convention signatory jurisdiction. Merely stating that a work is in the public domain does not clearly make it so. Since it's nearly impossible to remove copyright in a work under most jurisdictions, the best course is to write the copyright statement to clearly attribute the copyright holders and years of publication. What is needed, for this work to clearly be free software, is for the copyright holders to explicitly grant license in the work, saying unambiguously what freedoms all recipients have. Since the apparent intent is to: * Show attribution of the copyright holders. * Permit every recipient a very free license. I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 URL:http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0 is a good one IMO. Thanks in advance for your answers, please Cc me as I am not subscribed. Done. I hope this helps. -- \ “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than | `\ it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” —George Bernard Shaw | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/851trbx4tv@benfinney.id.au
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 URL:http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0 is a good one IMO. If they really want public domain, though, then CC-0 is good [1]. (However, it isn't OSI approved because it explicitly does not grant patent/trademark rights.) [1] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/541821d1.5040...@bitmessage.ch
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright): Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes: 1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement: # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... # Copyright (C) 2000 ... # # This program is in the public domain. but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... right? Right. The quoted statement is self-contradictory. It asserts copyright, and gives no grounds for the “public domain” claim. It also fails to grant license for any of the DFSG freedoms. So by strict interpretation of the statement in view of rigid application of copyright law, the work is effectively non-free software. This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author. In this case the author's intent is clear: the author wants to disclaim the monopolies granted by copyright law. The statement is to be read as a permissive licence. So no-one is in any danger of being sued by the (purported) copyrightholder. Obviously it would be better if the authors fixed this technical defect, but it has no significant practical consequences. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21528.26679.572646.86...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author. We would hope so, yes. They also take into account the intent of the *current* copyright holder. Courts are also not infallible guardians of the public interest; a hostile future copyright holder can wield the lack of a clear grant of license to cause a lot more trouble for recipients than would be the case if the license grant were clear. We have ample instances of that having been done in the past, enough to be cautious in treating ambiguous and contradictory copyright statements. In this case the author's intent is clear: the author wants to disclaim the monopolies granted by copyright law. The statement is to be read as a permissive licence. So no-one is in any danger of being sued by the (purported) copyrightholder. On this I can't see why you modify “copyright holder”. You think this is an effective divestment of copyright in the work? In all Berne Convention jurisdictions where Debian recipients will operate? I don't. It seems clear to me that “This work is in the public domain” is *not* an effective way to cause a work to have no copyright holder. That work is still restricted under copyright law, despite the intent of that statement. Obviously it would be better if the authors fixed this technical defect I'm glad that's a point of agreement. -- \“I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any | `\ view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and | _o__) opposite view.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85sijruz5j@benfinney.id.au
