Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Charles Plessy wrote: it would be much more productive if this scenario would be accompanied with some data and facts about which law in which country make the non-warranty disclaimer necessary, exemplified by cases where these laws have successfully been used in court by the plaintiff. Here is a commentary about implied warranties referring to the Universal Commercial Code adopted by most US states: Desai et al, 'Information Technology Litigation and Software Failure', The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT) 2002 (2) http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2002_2/desai/#a2.2.2 (found through http://www.bailii.org/ ) In the absence of such an analysis, the discussion is purely about fear, uncertainty and doubt. [...] If we have to take everything back to basics, this list will flood. If someone wishes to question a widespread practice, then that is good, but I suggest it's worth doing some research first and posting the results before suggesting it's FUD. (Now, if someone wants to question why disclaimers are often in hard-to-read capitals throughout... ;-) ) It is the addition of extra clauses and vague disclaimers that sometimes make licenses non-free (clauses like ‘do not kill people with my software’), so let's resist to temptation of making our license statements longer than what is necessary. Sure, but it need not be very long and doesn't make it non-free. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100630013534.750c1f7...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:50:00 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: Charles Plessy wrote: [...] It is the addition of extra clauses and vague disclaimers that sometimes make licenses non-free (clauses like ‘do not kill people with my software’), so let's resist to temptation of making our license statements longer than what is necessary. Sure, but it need not be very long and doesn't make it non-free. I agree that it wouldn't make the license any more non-free than it already is. Let's remember that we are talking about a license that is non-free in the first place, despite being very short and simple... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpKTYjdo1JQG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Hi! Am 27.06.2010 15:13, schrieb Ben Finney: [ SVG logo without no warranty waiver ] This does seem to be a valid concern. The SVG standard allows for documents to contain executable code for animation with ECMAScript URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/animate.html#DOMAnimationExample. So that at least makes it plausible that an SVG image could contain dangerous code. Is this something we should change? Not worry about? Much Ado Nothing? I think it would be prudent to add a warranty disclaimer like those found in Expat license terms or similar. Why do we need a warranty waiver for a feature, we don't actually use? Best regards, Alexander -- 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/4c29cb33.7040...@debian.org
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Hi! Am 29.06.2010 14:49, schrieb Ben Finney: [ SVG logo without no warranty waiver ] I think it would be prudent to add a warranty disclaimer like those found in Expat license terms or similar. Why do we need a warranty waiver for a feature, we don't actually use? Because we also allow modified works to be redistributed. Someone else could use that feature in a derived work, redistribute the result, thereby cause breakage. I still don't understand. Is it prudent to have such a clause, because someone else could embed a bad script, to be sure we are safe? (How could that happen, if someone else causes the problem and distributes that?) Or would it be prudent to do so, to allow / make it easier for others to embed code, as they would only like to do so, if they have such a clause? I'm sorry, I still don't get the point. Best regards, Alexander -- 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/4c2a1706.5030...@schmehl.info
Re: Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Hello, I understand the fact this feature isn't currently used and sounds like FUD, but why such a clause does exist for the logo without Debian? It assumes that in case of damages implying the use of the logo, the Debian Project do not provide any warranty like for any software as well as it can be written. Regards Pompee William -- 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/4c2a4598.3070...@gmail.com
Re: Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 21:12:24 +0200, Pompee William wrote: Hello, I understand the fact this feature isn't currently used and sounds like FUD, but why such a clause does exist for the logo without Debian? It assumes that in case of damages implying the use of the logo, the Debian Project do not provide any warranty like for any software as well as it can be written. Because it's the BSD license (or close enough), which traditionally carries that disclaimer. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:13 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 21:12:24 +0200, Pompee William wrote: Hello, I understand the fact this feature isn't currently used and sounds like FUD, but why such a clause does exist for the logo without Debian? It assumes that in case of damages implying the use of the logo, the Debian Project do not provide any warranty like for any software as well as it can be written. Because it's the BSD license (or close enough), which traditionally carries that disclaimer. Well, actually, it's the Expat license, but anyway... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpeEApiJynJh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl alexan...@schmehl.info writes: I still don't understand. Is it prudent to have such a clause, because someone else could embed a bad script, to be sure we are safe? That's what I'm saying. As I see it, the potential for legal confusion over who is implicitly warranting the embedded program is a greater risk than simply using a warranty disclaimer in the license terms. (How could that happen, if someone else causes the problem and distributes that?) I assume “how could that happen” there refers to the legal confusion. I don't pretend to be an expert, but “The Debian project is a major copyright holder in this work which caused damage to our systems, and there's no warranty disclaimer” isn't particularly implausible. Such a situation would predictably (not inevitably) lead to a court battle over who caused the damage; even if the Debian project knows that it's blameless, that could be expensive to prove in a court case. If a warranty disclaimer can nip that in the bud, by avoiding the need to discuss who did what, it seems like a simple and low-cost way to reduce the risk. I'm not insisting, but it seems that there is little downside to doing so, and a plausible risk is averted; which is why I say it would be prudent to do so. -- \ Eccles: “I just saw the Earth through the clouds!” Lew: “Did | `\ it look round?” Eccles: “Yes, but I don't think it saw me.” | _o__)—The Goon Show, _Wings Over Dagenham_ | Ben Finney -- 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/87fx05jwrr@benfinney.id.au
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Le Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:31:52AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : I assume “how could that happen” there refers to the legal confusion. I don't pretend to be an expert, but “The Debian project is a major copyright holder in this work which caused damage to our systems, and there's no warranty disclaimer” isn't particularly implausible. Such a situation would predictably (not inevitably) lead to a court battle over who caused the damage; even if the Debian project knows that it's blameless, that could be expensive to prove in a court case. Hi Ben and Pompee, it would be much more productive if this scenario would be accompanied with some data and facts about which law in which country make the non-warranty disclaimer necessary, exemplified by cases where these laws have successfully been used in court by the plaintiff. In the absence of such an analysis, the discussion is purely about fear, uncertainty and doubt. While it is true that most of the major players in the free software world have opted for having non-warranty disclaimers in their license, I think that we should do our best to base our actions on our understanding, not on the imitation of the others. It is the addition of extra clauses and vague disclaimers that sometimes make licenses non-free (clauses like ‘do not kill people with my software’), so let's resist to temptation of making our license statements longer than what is necessary. Have a nice day, -- 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100629235934.ga6...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: it would be much more productive if this scenario would be accompanied with some data and facts about which law in which country make the non-warranty disclaimer necessary, exemplified by cases where these laws have successfully been used in court by the plaintiff. I'll have to leave that work to others more motivated. I'm sufficiently convinced (by what I've explained earlier in this thread) that any work that *can* be interpreted as a functioning executable is an equally valid target for a warranty disclaimer. So, a software work that happens to be an SVG document needs a warranty disclaimer to the same extent that any other software work does. -- \ “My interest is in the future, as I am going to spend the rest | `\ of my life there.” —Charles F. Kettering | _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: http://lists.debian.org/877hlhjm1t@benfinney.id.au
logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Hi! On #debian-www will raised concerns that there might be issues with respect to our logo license for including the debian lettering. It doesn't contain a warranty waiver, and given that we publish svg images which could contain potential harmful scripting (from will's interpretation, not sure if that actually is possible or if there is some sandbox involved?) this might be considered an issue. Is this something we should change? Not worry about? Much Ado Nothing? Rhonda -- Lediglich 11 Prozent der Arbeitgeber sind der Meinung, dass jeder Mensch auch ein Privatleben haben sollte. -- http://www.karriere.at/artikel/884/ -- 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/20100627122948.ga2...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:29:48 +0200 Gerfried Fuchs wrote: Hi! Hello! On #debian-www will raised concerns that there might be issues with respect to our logo license for including the debian lettering. It doesn't contain a warranty waiver, If I understand correctly, the concern is about the Debian Open Use Logo with the “Debian” text [1]. This logo is still non-free according to the DFSG, as explained in the logos page [2], and indeed it seems that no disclaimer of warranty is present in its license. [1] for instance http://www.debian.org/logos/openlogo-100.png [2] http://www.debian.org/logos/ and given that we publish svg images which could contain potential harmful scripting (from will's interpretation, not sure if that actually is possible or if there is some sandbox involved?) this might be considered an issue. Is this something we should change? Not worry about? Much Ado Nothing? I have expressed my own personal disappointment with the Debian logos situation for a long time. The first time I can remember is on July 2004 [3]. [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00208.html AFAICT, the last time this issue was (briefly) discussed on debian-legal is on March 2010, in a 3-message thread [4] that left my questions unanswered, as has happened in other cases about the same topic... [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/03/msg5.html I don't know whether the lack of warranty disclaimer should be considered as a serious problem or a minor issue, but I am not satisfied [5] with the current licensing of Debian logos (three of them are non-free, and only one is DFSG-free). [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00048.html -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpv1qdbYw1kf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Hello, I agree with your proposal to do nothing to protect the Debian trademark under the copyright law using the DOULL since the trademark is automatically protected under the trademark law and we should enforce it by this mean only. Regards Pompee William -- 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/4c278996.9010...@gmail.com
