Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: If upstream sued Debian for violating their license for this reason, wouldn't the onus of proof then be upon upstream to prove that they were lying about what was their preferred form of modification? Given that, I'm not sure a judge would be very sympathetic to upstream's case ;-) Yeah, in the case where there's a single copyright holder, it's a pretty useless tactic. The problem only really comes into play when there are multiple copyright holders. [Of course, that's the state of a lot of works in Debian, but possibly not the one that originally started this thread.] Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, Chew more! Do more! The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian logos and trademarks
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:57:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents or trademarks. It actually doesn't refer to any of them specifically. It does talk about licensing, but it doesn't clarify whether it's refering to copyright licensing or trademark licensing. It talks about modification and distribution, which are copyright issues. These are issues which involve copyright, but they also involve patents and trademarks as well. [We've historically ignored the latter two, but only insofar as we are unware of their blocking the rights that the DFSG guarantees to our users.] In any event, this entire line of argument isn't particularly important, so long as no one puts the official logo into main or contrib. That's a completely new line of argument to the best of my knowledge, and not one which Debian should support, in my opinion. It's a problem that we've known existed for quite some time and have largely ignored. Adding to it by putting in logos with trademarks which are unecessary and probably need to be removed when people make deriviate works of Debian is not particularly useful. Having a free copyright license, and a reasonably permissive trademark license is sufficient for a name or logo to be in main, cf the terms Gnome, apache, java, or Debian for example. For non-functional names, an argument can be made that this follows from DFSG §4. For logos, there's no such clear argument. In the case of the logos that we do include, it's most likely akin to our patent policy; so long as no one has complained, we continue using them. Please note that historically we've protected both logos (the swirl and the bottle) using a non-free copyright license, and as unregistered trademarks. Of course, and this was countenanced by me at least because we were in the process of resolving this issue. Don Armstrong -- Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote: If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release the source, you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no obligation to give you anything. This is the same problem that exists for any work under the GPL; there's nothing special about recordings here. The problem with source for audio or video files is that the source is much larger and much more awkward to distribute than the final result. It's plausible that the author doesn't care what you do with his work, but doesn't want to give you these files simply because it's a lot of trouble. If you as an author do not want to distribute the source (or more importantly, require others who modify your source to do so) then you should pick a license like MIT or expat. The licensing line is fairly simple: Do you want copyleft? Yes: GPL (Maybe LGPL in some cases) No: MIT/Expat Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#412310: Conflicting copyright claims
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: it appears that some files in gettext appear to be suffering from MPD with regards to whether they're public domain or still copyrighted by the FSF. We're operating under the assumption that they're either PD or licensed as if they were, but it would be nice to clarify. On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, John Summerfield wrote: I would like to refer this bug to Debian Legal. I expected that it would be treated more serisously because its determination affects Debian's right to distribute gettext. Basically, some files contain both a claim of copyright and a claim the file's in the public domain. I, for one, don't see how both claims can stand. It is possible for a file to have components which are both in the public domain, and those which are copyrighted. Moreover, since some jurisdictions do not have a concept of public domain, in them a copyright may still exist. [Course, in many of the files in question, it's not clear that there is enough expressive content to actually be copyrightable...] Please, don't cc me in any of this, I expect to find the resolution when the bug report's updated. Sorry; you bring the issue up, you get to be involved. Don Armstrong -- A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election. -- Bill Vaughan http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: MJ Ray escribe: Both of the situations are biased - each person will probably think their preferred occupation is more creative or worthwhile. If they thought otherwise, they'd probably be doing the other task. Why is this news to anyone? With the difference that the programmer needs what he's programming to *work* according to a suite of specs. Specifications are not an intrinsic part of programming any more than they are in painting. I suggest reading _The Tao of Programming_. Don Armstrong -- I shall require that [a scientific system's] logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of emperical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an emperical scientific system to be refuted by experience. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §6 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Debian License agreement
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Vsevolod Krishchenko wrote: I fear that it is sound stupid but I wonder does such thing like Debian EULA exit? FC, for example, has EULA (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA) The reason I asked this question is authorities here in Russia may require license agreement to entire system used on computer. Today I read Debian license policy and found nothing that could satisfy generic cop. Surely this only applies to people who are selling stuff rather than giving it away? I believe that some reasons prevent publishing licence agreement for entire Debian system still FC has one that describe some basic rights. I really need some LA with minimal rights such as all software included in Debain could be used by Users on any number of computers and other rights are described in license for each component of Debian and of course No warranty. Every work in Debian has its own license with its own permissions, lack of warranty, which can be found in /usr/share/doc/foopkg/copyright or via packages.debian.org As far as an overall license, there isn't one, but we try to make sure that works in Debian (IE, works in main) comply with the DFSG (but we can't possibly guarantee that they do.) Don Armstrong -- Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence Point. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
First off, thanks to all involved for working through this; legal stuff is annoying, but getting it right early makes it all worthwhile in the end. On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote: We have a question about the default songs for the guitar-simulation game Frets On Fire. (We would like to get the songs into main if possible; otherwise, into contrib or non-free. But we need to satisfy the Finnish music licensing organization Teosto. I wonder if we could draft a license that would fulfill this condition? There's really no point to drafting such a license, because it would not be acceptable for main, and more to the point, Teosto would have to vet it. Teosto's lawyers should really be the ones spending time and money to do so. (After all, that's what they're paid to do.) What needs to happen for the work to go in main is that Teosto needs to grant for whatever works that they own the copyright for the ability to distribute them under MIT/Expat (or similar) in addition to whatever license they'd use for uses of the work which are not in compliance with MIT/Expat. If it's decided that Teosto cannot be convinced to be slightly less antiquated in their copyright doctrine, then the alternative is to use whatever standard game only redistribution license Teosto uses (or will write) and then distribute them in non-free with game itself in contrib or main, depending on whether it depends upon the songs or has enough songs included to work without them. Don Armstrong [You'll notice that I didn't mention the CC; there is still some debate about its freeness, and if possible, I'd strongly suggest using a less problematic license like MIT/Expat or the GPL.] -- NASCAR is a Yankee conspiracy to keep you all placated so the South won't rise again. -- http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=327 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote: Maybe if debian-legal or I wrote the license (I have never written a license before, but maybe I could modify the MIT license) we could get Teosto to agree on more liberal terms than we would get if Teosto wrote one? The following is what I would use if I were to license my own compositions[1] for distribution in Debian: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work (the Work), to deal in the Work without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Work. THE WORK IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE WORK. Don Armstrong 1: If you're feeling generous enough to call them that... -- For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none is possible. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Terry Hancock wrote: The true distinction is between aesthetic works, meaning works which are valued for themselves (i.e. you sensually appreciate the work in one form or another) and utilitarian works, meaning works whose principle value is in how they are used. If the principle value of gcc were its aesthetic appeal (e.g. you like to wallpaper your room with the printout), then it's the same as an aesthetic work like a movie or a song. By contrast, there are almost no such uses of a movie or a song. They are meant to be rendered to the human senses and appreciated for their own content. This is a real distinction. Except that it's not. There is no hard delineation between utilitarian works and aesthetic works. If I have no use for gcc's utilitarian role, and find it aesthetically pleasing for whatever reason, that's as valid as your purely utilitarian role for it. Likewise there are many utilitarian uses for movies or songs. I know of many movies that I've watched and songs which I have listened to which have altered the way I think or feel about specific subjects. They were designed in no small part to have exactly that effect upon people. You are traversing the same argument as litigation on pornography versus art has traversed, which ultimately terminates in the handwaving I know it when I see it or the even less penetrable what the artist says it is. When is a urinal not a urinal? the inability to access utilitarian works only implies the need to create free ones, and has little or no cultural consequences. I would think that Debian itself not existing would be a profound cultural consequence to most of us participating on this list. In fact, free licensing is an adequate solution for utilitarian works, but in the end, only better copyright law can fully resolve the problem for aesthetic works. Why? More importantly, what does this have to do with the works that we distribute within Debian? If a work is actually being distributed within Debian, then I submit that it must fill some sort of utilitarian role. Something must use it in order to produce some functionality or appearance. If it doesn't, then it has no business bloating the archive and being distributed by our mirror network. If that's the case, then we must be able to take the work, modify it, and redistribute it in order to enable our users to do what they need to do. If the copyright holder is withholding information that could be theoretically distributed by us which is necessary to modify the work, then we are not able to execute the tenets of our social contract. Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyleft variation of MIT license
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: Instead, I admire the MIT license for its short length and comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft variation of the MIT license[2]. I'm not even going to bother reading and reviewing the following license for the following reasons: 1) Contributing to license proliferation is bad. You propose to create another copyleft license which is incompatible with many other widely use copyleft licenses. I canot in good faith even begin to suggest that you continue and have other people use your license. 2) Deciding whether or not to use a license based on its brevity is not useful at all. Liceses that do very simple things, like Expat, can be short because they give everything away. Indeed, PD grants/licenses would be even shorter. Licenses that do complex things, like turning copyright law on its head, have to be long in order to deal properly with the corner cases so the freedom of users is not abridged. Brevity is a virtue, but brevity at the expense of clarity and completeness is counterproductive. 3) Lack of desire to comprehend all of the tenets of a relatively clearly written license (GNU GPL) does not make the license useless, nor does it bode well for writing Free Software licenses in general. If there are specific issues with the GPL, or the need for a general overview, contact competent legal representation and have them explain the license to you. Don Armstrong -- There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyleft variation of MIT license
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: You propose to create another copyleft license which is incompatible with many other widely use copyleft licenses. Could you please explain how it is incompatible with popular copyleft licenses? Most copyleft licenses are intrinsically incompatible with eachother; but in this case, it's because you are specifically restricting the distribution of binaries beyond what the GPL restricts. Since the combination of code under your license and the GPL cannot be distributed exactly under the terms of the GPL, it cannot, as a consequence, be distributed at all. Don Armstrong -- It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is smoking. -- Andrew Suffield in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swiftfox license
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: This tells that *swiftfox*binaries* are not distributable, not the binaries we would obtain building from sources. Until you get to section 3: 3. Source code only is licensed MPL as required by mozilla.org http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt Binaries are not MPL and no redistribution of binaries is allowable under any circumstances. Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#419597: please remove twolame (patent infringement)
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Robert Millan wrote: twolame contains code (MP3 encoding algorithm) which infringes patents of the Fraunhofer Institute. This falls in the Software that can't be packaged cathegory in WNPP: Except that according to its package description, it does not contain code to encode Mpeg Audio Layer 3 files, only MPEG Audio Layer 2. [Indeed, the very threat of litigation involving mp3 is why twolame exists.] I don't personally know if mp2 is safe from patents or not (I would guess that it isn't, but I can't make a determination either way anyway) but to my knowledge we have yet to see people asserting patents which cover mp2. Feel free to provide specific evidence to contradict me, however. Don Armstrong -- UF: What's your favourite coffee blend? PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote: This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian against the Social Contract. License texts which are being distributed in their capacity as a license under which a work in Debian is distributed cannot be modified necessarily. I don't believe anyone is seriously arguing differently, save as a method of defending non-modifiability elsewhere. This was raised in 2004 on this list (and presumably earlier as well.)[1] I don't believe we need an amendment to the Social Contract to specifically state this as the case, but a correctly worded one which specifically amended the social contract and/or the DFSG appropriately may be worth some thought. Unfortunatly, the currently proposed amendment does not disambiguate between license texts in their capacity as a license under which a work is distribute and random text which is labelled as a license. Don Armstrong 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/01/msg01307.html -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in The Conspiracy of Catiline by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote: How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the licenses under which works in Debian are distributed; It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically being used as a license under which a work in Debian is being distributed. [IE, in debian/copyright or specifically included by reference from there.] For example, a second copy of the GPL in a package under the GPL would not be acceptable, nor would a copy of the GPL in a package not under the GPL. Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote: How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the licenses under which works in Debian are distributed; It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically being used as a license under which a work in Debian is being distributed. [IE, in debian/copyright or specifically included by reference from there.] For example, a second copy of the GPL in a package under the GPL would not be acceptable, nor would a copy of the GPL in a package not under the GPL. I presume the distinction you're making there is between license texts that are already distributed in /usr/share/common-licenses/ and license texts that aren't. I'm not making such a distinction. The actual location in which the license is distributed does not matter. All that matters is that it is a license being used as a legal document under which a work in Debian is being distributed. It cannot be a license whose removal or abridgement would have no legal effect upon the work in which it is distributed. [I would argue as well that its removal cannot have a functional effect on the work either.] Don Armstrong -- What I can't stand is the feeling that my brain is leaving me for someone more interesting. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#420686: It's not obvious esniper is legal (violation of eBay ToS)
severity 420686 normal thanks On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Sami Liedes wrote: 2.2.3 says Packages must be placed in _non-free_ if they are not compliant with the DFSG or are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their distribution problematic. (I expected to find something saying something about software that cannot be distributed at all, but apparently it's not there, and all the language in other sections seems very copyright and patent centric.) eBay TOS (or User Agreement in eBay terms) says[1]: _Access and Interference_ The Sites contains robot exclusion headers. Much of the information on the Sites is updated on a real-time basis and is proprietary or is licensed to eBay by our users or third parties. You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Sites for any purpose without our express written permission. Additionally, you agree that you will not: [...] - bypass our robot exclusion headers or other measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Sites. This is a case of whether or not it is legal to (or strictly speaking, a violation of an agreement to which the user may be a party when using) a piece of software in a particular fashion, not whether it is legal to distribute it. In general, we deal with cases of the letter on -legal (and in general in the archive) rather than the former. I've not closed the bug report myself, but I have made the severity non-RC. Dima: that's your call; you can wait for more -legal contributors to weigh in, or you can close the report. Don Armstrong -- One day I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time. -- Steven Wright http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Ion3 licence
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:22:43 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I expected[2]. (However, there is already an icewm, so I can't take quite the same approach. :-)) Do you need a somewhat ice related name to replace ion3? What about hydroxonium3? Or you could just go literal, and use aluminum (or similar) which forms a 3+ ion in solution, and isn't the name of a package currently in Debian. [Iron (well, ferrum) would also work for the same reason, but that may be confusingly similar.] Don Armstrong -- In all matters of government, the correct answer is usually: Do nothing -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p428 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Can a font with an unfree character be free?
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Nathan Edgars II wrote: The International Symbol of Access (the wheelchair symbol that's used all over the place), to the best of my knowledge, is unfree. Its conditions of use can be seen at http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/japanese/resource/other/z00014/z0001406_e.html It's also a unicode codepoint. That's the conditions of use of the ISA which is copyright by ICTA or whatever the UN group is now who holds the copyright. So long as the font character is not a derivative work of the copyrighted symbol, then the rules regarding its use do not apply. If a font includes this as a character, can it be free? Considering the fact that the actual symbol is a white wheelchair on a blue background, it's not clear that a black font would be a derivative work of such a design. Baring such a specific claim by ICTA or another copyright holder, there's no need to even address the issue. Don Armstrong -- The trouble with you, Ibid he said, is that you think you're the biggest bloody authority on everything -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p146 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Can a font with an unfree character be free?
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/14/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering the fact that the actual symbol is a white wheelchair on a blue background, it's not clear that a black font would be a ^ derivative work of such a design. ^^^ I didn't think simply changing colors removed the original copyright. [emphasis added] If that is in fact what was done, it obviously doesn't. However, what is actually copyrighted is a specific representation of a person in a wheelchair, and the creation of derivative works thereof. It's not clear that all minimalistic representations of a person in a wheelchair would be derivative works of the ISA. Don Armstrong -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Can a font with an unfree character be free?
First off, we're not talking about free/non-free here; we're talking about who controls the copyright of a glyph in a font. The free/non-free nature of the glyph is dependent on how that work is licensed, not the copyright status of the work. On Tue, 15 May 2007, Nathan Edgars II wrote: But a depiction with the same lines in the same place would be unfree, right? Only if the depiction was a derivative work of the orignally copyrighted work. Only trademark protects against the convergence of unrelated works; copyright does not. You'd have to basically start from scratch and draw a new wheelchair symbol to make it free? The question is whether or not that has been done. In order to talk about that intelligently, we have to look at specific instances of the symbol's use in a specific font within a specific package and the process that resulted in creating the glyph. Don Armstrong -- If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#421513: sphpblog License-Question (modified/expanded GPL)
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Cord Beermann wrote: I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? Yes, it does. Both of these requirements are nonfree, and quite frankly, unreasonable. Don Armstrong -- Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it. -- Richard Feynman http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: aggregate: license
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Erik Wenzel wrote: is this license compatible to GPL, what do you think? Sure seems to be so to me; it looks like an abridged expat license. [There is a question about differing warranty clauses being compatible, but AFAICT everyone as ignored that for the most part; GPLv3 clears it up anyway.] Don Armstrong -- Democracy is more dangerous than fire. Fire can't vote itself immune to water. -- Michael Z. Williamson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programs made by teenagers
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote: I might package a game created by a teenager, so I wanted to make sure that the fact thas she's minor wouldn't be a problem. I don't know if she has right to license what she does, or it must be her parents, or something like that. Any thoughts on this? Is there any difference in her being over or under 16? It really depends on the jurisdiction; it'd be best if she had her parents permission to license her work the way she has just to avoid any complications, but it may not be necessary everywhere. I personally don't think it's necessary to see an e-mail from here parents or anything formal like that; just an acknowledgement from her that she has told them what she's doing, and that they don't object is probably sufficient. What we're protecting ourselves from here is cases where the parents have decided that the minor is not of the majority and did not understand what she was doing and decides to sue Debian or our users because the license was invalid. Since we're just as vulernable to cases where the copyright holder is untruthfully specified, I don't think it's necessary to go overboard with proof. Don Armstrong -- The beauty of the DRUNKENNESS subprogram was that you could move your intoxication level up and down at will, instead of being caught on a relentless down escalator to bargain basement philosophy and the parking garage. -- Rudy von Bitter _Software_ p124 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote: 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any solution to the distribution of a Debian system based on OpenSolaris. This is not the case, unfortunatly, and it really would be wise in the future to consult with people who are familiar with the arguments surrounding such licenses before expressing Debian's opinion to the FSF. The CDDL's clause 9 is very much not appropriate for works in main, and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the CDDL have never been accepted in main.[1] To underline, the following clauses in the CDDL are problematic: 9. MISCELLANEOUS [...] This License shall be governed by the law of the jurisdiction specified in a notice contained within the Original Software (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), excluding such jurisdiction's conflict-of-law provisions. Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts located in the jurisdiction and venue specified in a notice contained within the Original Software, with the losing party responsible for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. [...] You agree that You alone are responsible for compliance with the United States export administration regulations (and the export control laws and regulation of any other countries) when You use, distribute or otherwise make available any Covered Software. It's not appropriate for a Free Software license to require users of software to give up rights that they would normaly have in their own jurisdiction. Don Armstrong 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00026.html -- A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'... -- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote: On May 24, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not the case, unfortunatly, and it really would be wise in the future to consult with people who are familiar with the arguments surrounding such licenses before expressing Debian's opinion to the FSF. Do you mean the ftpmasters, don't you? If I had meant only the ftpmasters, I would have said so. That said, I did point to a message written by Joerg (an ftpmaster) about this particular license. It's not appropriate for a Free Software license to require users of software to give up rights that they would normaly have in their own jurisdiction. But still, it's not forbidden by the DFSG. The DFSG is a set of guidelines; there are many things that licenses can do which would be anathema to Free Software but are not specifically excluded by the DFSG. That said, the typical argument is that giving up your right to have cases tried in your local venue is a fee or royalty, and as such violates DFSG �1. If you put your mind to it, I'm sure you can come up with others. Don Armstrong -- I shall require that [a scientific system's] logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of emperical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an emperical scientific system to be refuted by experience. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ �6 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote: Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can ignore it. The problem is not the choice-of-law, but the choice-of-venue clause, as you yourself indicated in.[1] I don't know why it has yet to be removed by Sun, but we were told that that (or relicensing of works under GPLv2/3) was in progress a year ago. In any event, this has been rather laboriously discussed previously in threads about the CDDL[2,3,4], so I'll stop here. Don Armstrong 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg2.html 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00056.html 3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00075.html 4: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Don Armstrong wrote: That said, the typical argument is that giving up your right to have cases tried in your local venue is a fee or royalty, and as such violates DFSG ?1. Just to underline this some more in case it's still not clear why this is a fee, or even why if not it should not be allowed for licences in main: This clause is on the continuum of clauses that ends in clauses like in any court action concerning this license you automatically lose. Whether you agree with the fee argument or not, such clauses have no business being in main because by using software under such a license you either give up rights that you had or at least potentially give them up. When you are ceding rights, interest, money, or other intangibles to the licensor or original author, you are paying them for using their software in a form of currency. Don Armstrong -- If I had a letter, sealed it in a locked vault and hid the vault somewhere in New York. Then told you to read the letter, thats not security, thats obscurity. If I made a letter, sealed it in a vault, gave you the blueprints of the vault, the combinations of 1000 other vaults, access to the best lock smiths in the world, then told you to read the letter, and you still can't, thats security. -- Bruce Schneier http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom). And no, it's not a well-established word in that regard. Like many terms in the Copyright/Trademark/Patent rights space, it gets missused by people who are not familiar with it and haven't bothered to consult a dictionary. If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD or to the DFSG in the definition of the adjective free. Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning.[1] We use free in our conversations about licensing and software because of the meaning that it already posseses, not the other way around. Please bear in mind that we are talking about technical meanings that have to be defined in their field: a non-technical dictionary won't help. The word proprietary has a perfectly well defined meaning in this field. It means closed or exclusive. That people mistakenly conflate it with being non-freeness has little to do with its actual meaning. Things that are non-proprietary are perfectly capable of being non-free. See for example the works in non-free for which we actually have source code. They are clearly not proprietary, but are definetly not free. I've sometimes seen the closed/open distinction used to refer to the availability of source code (which is a necessary, but non-sufficient, condition for freeness). It can refer to that, but it can also refer to specifications, standards, protocols, goods, etc. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. I don't see the term proprietary as more confusing than free. Once they are defined in the context of software freedom, they are perfectly clear to me. If, on the other hand, you insist that a dictionary must be consulted, then you will find many meanings for the term free (including gratuitous), none of which specifies which freedoms should be granted over a piece of software in order to call it free software. English has a great deal of words which have multiple definitions on which generations of english speakers have agreed upon and/or abused. The meaning of a word which has multiple definitions is generally clarified from context, and if not, it's trival to ask. What you're attempting to do is not comparable; it's inventing new definitions for words which are not commonly or historically agreed upon. Don Armstrong 1: Not surpisingly, the meaning we use is actually the first meaning in most dictionaries; gratis typically is found farther down. -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning. A piece of free software is not able to act at will, nor is it exempt from subjection to the will of others. The whole point of free software is that it is exempt from subjection to the will of others. Your will does not impeed what I am able to do to Free Software, even if you hold the copyright upon it. A piece of non-free software belongs to a proprietor, in the sense that a monopoly over it is held by the copyright holder. Proprietary software is typically non-free, but the converse is not true. There are many pieces of software which are non-free but are decidedly not proprietary. Consider any of the pieces of software in non-free for which the source code is available. I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. If we are to use it in that sense, then it is completely meaningless in this discussion (unless you plan on distinguishing between PD and non-PD works) as every single copyrightable work has a copyright holder, and is therefore owned by a proprietor. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. Yes, exclusivity. When enough actions covered by your exclusive rights are permitted to everyone (as in Free Software), you have really little exclusivity left. That's why I don't think the use of the term proprietary as a synonym of non-free should be considered so strange or awkward. Because proprietary works are a subset of non-free works, a free work cannot also be proprietary. However, a non-free work does not necessarily have to be proprietary. This is why you should not use the terms interchangeably. This is the same reason why we talk about Free Software instead of merely talking about Open Source Software: a piece of free software cannot be closed, but an open work does not necessarily have to be free. It's not me. I'm not trying to invent new definitions, as I am not the only one who uses the term proprietary as equivalent to non-free. Many others seem to do so: one notable example is RMS and the FSF Neither RMS nor the FSF use proprietary interchangeably with non-free to the best of my knowledge. [At least, I've never heard RMS use it that way.] And frankly, even if they did, it wouldn't make their usage correct. Feel free to provide citations to back up your claims, though. Don Armstrong -- Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: The first common meanings of the word proprietary seem to refer to the concept of property, owning, and trademark/patent/copyright. They refer to the concept of property which is *exclusively* owned and controlled, such that a single entity is able to market and sell it. what's your definition of proprietary software, then? Software with source code kept secret? Software whose use, modification, selling, or distribution is controlled exclusively by a single party, generally by restricting access to the source code and/or restrictive licencing agreements. Just a nit-pick, not really interchangeably, because of semi-free software. I am deliberately neglecting semi-free software here. Well, that's the root of our contention then. As proprietary software does not encompass the entire set of non-free software, you should not use the terms interchangeably. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in The Conspiracy of Catiline by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Computer with Debian preinstalled
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Michael Bode wrote: I'm planning to sell PCs with a preinstalled Debian system. This in itself should not be problematic, I guess. But do I have to handle sources? GPL section 3 requires me to either include all sources of the installed GPL binaries or give a written offer to ship the sources on CD/DVD/whatever media. Is that correct, or is it ok to say 'look, it's Debian on that machine, go to debian.org for the sources'? What are other people who sell PCs with preinstalled Debian doing? We can't really give you legal advice, but if I were you, I'd include with the computer media containing the binary packages that you've installed along with the corresponding source code. Alternatively, you could just have the source code present on the machine itself if you didn't provide media at all. Using a written offer for source is also possible, but it means that you have to keep around the source code for three years; by including it with the computer, you can ship it and forget it. [This is one reason why Debian has the source code for all of main on the same servers that the binary packages are served from.] Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: debian-devel re-added. On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the CDDL have never been accepted in main.[1] star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...] star | 1.5a67-1 | stable | source, alpha, amd64, [...] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.5a57-1/star.copyright http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=350624 Quoting from the bug log, Anthony Towns wrote: | The CDDL mightn't be the best license in the world, and isn't GPL | compatible, but it's still DFSG-free. Closing this bug with this | message. I do *not* agree that the CDDL meets the DFSG, especially when a choice of venue is in place. That a poster to debian-legal doesn't think a license meets the DFSG isn't particularly useful information, and is even less so when that poster isn't a DD, a maintainer or someone in the n-m queue. It's not like there aren't DDs who feel that it isn't DFSG free; Steve Langasek and myself have consistently argued against it, and I doubt we're the only two. That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in main speak up and give their rationale? Don Armstrong -- Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you really want to test his character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
reopen 350624 thanks On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote: That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in main speak up and give their rationale? Actually, I must take this back; it's almost certain that ftpmaster did not approve this, because the work when originally included in Debian (S tar 1.4.3) was only licensed under the GPL [From star.c]: /* * Copyright (c) 1985, 88-90, 92-96, 98, 99, 2000-2002 J. Schilling */ /* * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) * any later version. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the * GNU General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with * this program; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software * Foundation, 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */ I'm not entirely sure that it would have been found acceptable had it gone through NEW with its current license. Don Armstrong -- Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. -- Oscar Wilde http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:12:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote: That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in main speak up and give their rationale? Actually, I must take this back; it's almost certain that ftpmaster did not approve this, Er, isn't that what AJ's closure message *is*? It could be. Of course, last time I checked, AJ wasn't primarily doing NEW processing, which is the area of responsibility that my original message was (incorrectly) aimed at. Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#288655: Opinions on Paul Hsieh derivative license
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Paul Cager wrote: The content may not be modified via excerpt or otherwise with the exception of additional citations such as described above without prior consent of Paul Hsieh. This seems to disallow modification, which is decidedly not DFSG free. Suggest that the authors reimplement the hash function or use a pre-existing free alternative. Don Armstrong -- It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject? -- Robert Fisk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: How you feel about a license isn't any more important than the other people's feelings that happen to be opposite to you. The above isn't analysis, it's grandstanding. My mistake; I assumed the references I provided earlier to the analysis done in 2005 and 2006 were sufficent. Allow me to summarize and repeat the problems with choice of venue clauses for the benifit of those who have not read the threads which I referenced earlier: Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In order to return to a sane jurisdiction, you generally must first get the choice of venue clause vacated, and only then do you start the normal change of venue process. Since there is no compulsion to agree to a license and the work is not being sold, it's less likely that such a clause will be vacated in comparison to the equivalent clause in shrinkwrap licenses.[1] Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such fails DFSG 1. Finally, by placing works under licenses with such clauses into non-free, we advise people that they should be examining the license more closely before deciding whether or not they should (or can) use the software. And if you really want to have licenses determined by how people feel rather than analysing the effects of the license in real world situations as compared to what's actually written in the DFSG, I expect you'll find we just end up with more GRs like the the GFDL GR that doesn't match commonly held opinions on debian-legal at all. I'm personally using feel as shorthand for my understanding of the legal situtation regarding this clause and its relation to the DFSG not the way the clause effects me emotionally or what my DFSG dartboard said when I threw my official -legal flaming darts at it. I'm well aware that I'm personally more concerned about licensing matters than the average developer, but then again, that's also why I (perhaps naïvely) expect people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis with counter arguments, come to a complete understanding of the problem, and then make a determination. And also realise that the only place your opinion is actually going to have some effect is in packages you maintain, or if we hold a poll or a vote, and posting to -legal isn't participating in either of those. My goal is to convince ftpmasters and developers that my analysis is reasonable, and that these works with licenses containing these kinds of clauses have no place in main. Failing that, I can only educate users and not install those packages myself, hoping that unsuspecting users do not get caught out by upstreams which have decided to become litigious.[2] Don Armstrong 1: I have no idea of the odds of such things happening, though. It definetly varies from district to district in the US, not to mention other countries. 2: Which, unfortunatly enough, is a legitimate concern considering the upstream of this particular package. -- If you find it impossible to believe that the universe didn't have a creator, why don't you find it impossible that your creator didn't have one either? -- Anonymous Coward http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167556cid=13970629 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Since it was requested, allow me to put forward a simple example of a case where choice of venue coupled with choice of law is suboptimal. Star is licensed under a modified CDDL license, which specifies Berlin, Germany as the choice of law and venue. If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the license under 6.1, and bring action in Berlin for copyright infringement; the maintainer and any other parties to the action (people to whom the work was distributed after notification of breech) would then have to defend themselves in Berlin instead of notifying the court that the venue was improper (or whatever the German equivalent is.) Considering the saber rattling that has come from star's upstream over precisely this issue in cdrecord, it's not so far fetched. On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. Contracts and licenses in general short-circuit the normal determination of rights under common or legislated law in some jurisdictions in some cases too. Of course; this is a refutation of the thesis that choice of venue clauses are legally void, not a claim that they are unique. Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such fails DFSG 1. You're not giving up any rights, you're gaining the right to modify and distribute the software under certain conditions, just as you are under the GPL. We don't give up rights under the GPL that we otherwise enjoy though; we only gain ones in specific circumstances. In the case of the CDDL, we lose rights even in the case where we're only using the work. You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something more than that to violate the DFSG. giving up something that you might value [or] otherwise demand compensation for applies equally well to cash money as it does to any other intangible which has value. A requirement to send an email to the licensor if you possibly can isn't cash money either, but it sure seems to be a fee to me. The DFSG are a set of *guidelines*, if you can't explain violations in simple, understandable terms, they're not violations. This is my understanding as well; I'm only explaining the application to DFSG 1 to attempt to appease strict constructionists. I'm personally using feel as shorthand for my understanding of the legal situtation regarding this clause and its relation to the DFSG That's great, but *your understanding* isn't any more important than anyone else's. I'm not claiming that it is; my point is that my understanding is not *less* important than anyone else's. I've done what everyone should do to come to an understanding. There's something fundamentally wrong with the way discussions work on debian-legal that people think that simply posting their understanding is a valuable contribution. What else can we do? We take input, we examine it, we respond with our understanding of how the input meshes together. I don't believe we're capable of presenting absolute truth. The reason why it's not is that it doesn't provide any good way of resolving disagreements: you can either revert to authority (such as ftpmaster's), you can resort to polls (such as a GR or an informal one on forums.debian.net), or you can attack people who hold different opinions in the hopes that they'll stop speaking and thus not be heard in future. Or we can try to understand the basis for our positions, and either come to a place where we agree, or have completely plumbed the argument so that we agree to disagree. This is my goal. I don't believe we've come to this position on the CDDL yet. If we end up agreeing to disagree, then we should punt, and use the GR process to decide whether the work goes in main or not, and have each side write up a explanation of the problems surrounding the license, and publicise it with those that agree signing on to it. implying that other people aren't sufficiently concerned about licensing matters, aren't actually engag[ing] the analysis with counter arguments, don't have a complete understanding of the problem in order to stop them mak[ing] a determination sounds like a pretty good match for the last case. It's very much the opposite, actually. I'd like nothing more than to have people who disagree with my understanding attack the rationale behind my understanding so at the end of the day, no matter how wrong my understanding starts, I end up getting things right. I like to believe that many -legal contributors have this mindset as well. Ultimately Debian's policy isn't going to be decided by whoever understands legal
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the license under 6.1, [...] Should someone be willing to do that, and a court is willing to go through all those steps with a choice of venue clause, what makes you think they'd not do so in the absence of one? The difference is in the cost of defending against such an action; in the normal case you have the ability to make the entire claim go away by notifying the court that the venue is improper. In the case of a choice of venue clause, you first have to invalidate the choice of venue, which increases the cost. If you're going to ignore the court case, it doesn't matter to you, but if you ever plan on travelling to germany or doing business with people in germany (or live in some part of germany that isn't close enough to berlin to defend yourself there) it can be a significant cost. we only gain ones in specific circumstances. In the case of the CDDL, we lose rights even in the case where we're only using the work. What makes you think the latter is true? I don't endorse the claim that copyright licenses can take away usage rights if you're not making use of the ability to modify or distribute that they offer you. Unlike the GPL, the CDDL doesn't separate use from modification. Since use (or at least performance of a work) is a right that is reserved to the copyright holder, you need some level of permission to do so. But even so, when you say things like I'm personally more concerned about licensing than the average developer and I [...] expect people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis with counter arguments, come to a complete understanding of the problem, and then make a determination you are saying your understanding is more important than other people's. No, I'm saying that people who disagree should engage my analysis instead of remaining silent or discarding them with offhand comments. Holding people who agree with you to that standard might be a way to start? If I had time to do so, I'd consider it. Since I don't, I content myself with trying to make sure my messages approach this standard, setting an example instead. What else can we do? We take input, we examine it, we respond with our understanding of how the input meshes together. I don't believe we're capable of presenting absolute truth. Who is we in the above? For someone who's not a regular on -legal, it doesn't sound like it includes me. I'd like to believe it includes every rational being. In any event, the important thing (afaics) isn't to have a forum where regulars can post their understanding of issues, it's to help the people you're communicating with have a better appreciation for the complexities involved in their issue and how they might choose to approach them. That can mean pointing out possible drawbacks in existing licenses, explaining tradeoffs between licenses, or suggesting alternative ways of drafting licenses that avoid having to make some tradeoffs, but it doesn't mean making the tradeoffs for other people. Almost all this happens on -legal, actually. Some of it happens more frequently on other lists, since drafting licenses is not something that -legal does, but many of the contributors to -legal are involved in making sure that new versions of licences that are drafted are obviously DFSG Free. I've personally been involved in trying to resolve the GFDL issue, making sure that the GPLv3 is DFSG free, and have been working along with Simon and a few others to try to fix the RFC issue. [In the case of the CDDL, it's interesting to note that this very issue was supposedly going to be fixed or at least looked at in an upcomming revision of the CDDL.] No, punting to a GR is not a good solution -- it's slow to come to a resolution, it annoys developers who have to inform themselves about something they'd rather not worry about, and it ends up with -legal folks complaining that the resolution doesn't make sense. If it's the case that a signficant proportion of contributors to -legal and Debian Developers feel that an improper decision has been made, there's little else that can be done besides bringing it to a GR. What would make it more welcoming? A large part of the problem is the need to continuously point out counter arguments, [...] What makes it unwelcoming is the appearance of a consensus that doesn't brook argument, even when that consensus differs significantly from that of other sections of the free software (or open source) community. The problem is that it's very difficult to know if the consensus differens from the silent majority because the silent majority is nearly silent. there are some things that are widely agreed to be free, some things that are widely agreed
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: Debian does accept the CDDL as a free license (at least when the choice of venue is Berlin). Indeed; I wasn't aware of the CDDL ever being accepted in main; had I paid more attention to it, I would have brought this issue up sooner. It would be useful in the future if a statement of the policy of ftpmaster could be made when such a determiniation of acceptability of a work for main, especially when a work is reasonably controversial on -legal. Adopting pre-existing arguments for or against specific clauses of the license from -legal should be straight forward, and it'd be easy for those in agreement to sign on to the opinion of ftpmaster using their GPG keys. Unfortunatly, the start of this thread and a terse message to 350624-done is the only publicly available information that I'm aware of about the decision regarding this license. Don Armstrong -- There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their REAL earnings to the IRS. -- The B.O.F.H.. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual. This in itself is why we do not have GFDLed manpages. Don Armstrong -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you get sued and convicted as a private person in a jurisdiction that is not yours, there are two possible outcomes: * You try to defend yourself, and might win or lose depending on the case. If you go to the jurisdiction where you are being sued, the end result might be that enforcement is likely. * You do nothing, and nothing happens I'm not sure what any of this has to do with choice of venue; the only thing choice of venue alters is your ability to stop the case in the initial phases by advertising that venue is improper in that jursidiction, not your ability to decide that ignoring German law is the appropriate tactic. On top of that, the licensor couldn't even sue me in Belgium, since then *I* could invoke the choice-of-venue clause to prevent that. They'd probably come to Belgium to get the German decision enforced, actually. They're fairly close, after all. Don Armstrong [Who has no idea if these sorts of clauses even work in Germany or Belgium] -- 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://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual. So you're saying that the current gcc*doc* package in non-free that places the invariant sections in a separate manpage is violating the GFDL? Yes. It is my understanding that it is violating the letter of the GFDL. This isn't a real problem. The FSF isn't going to be enacting legal action against OpenBSD or all the other distros who created a gcc manpage from the info docs. I believe most of us agree on this point, which is why the status quo of a work present in non-free hasn't been seriously challenged. You'll note though, that we do not (and cannot) distribute gcc-4.1.1(7) seprately from gpl(7); there is a versioned dependency between those packages. Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users. The Developers as a whole decided that the problems with invariant sections and the GFDL were sufficient enough to exclude them from main. However, the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free. If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in its entirety. The choice is yours, really. Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. From the summary: If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community, have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court will have jurisdiction. The Regulation lays down a number of formalities that must be observed in such choice of jurisdiction agreements: the agreement must be in writing, or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves or, in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are aware. * Choice of jurisdiction is a general principle of private international law under which the parties to a contract are free to designate a court to rule on any disputes even though that court might not have had jurisdiction on the basis of the factors objectively connecting the contract with a particular place. Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. From the summary: If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community, have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court will have jurisdiction. True, if it's a EU country. Sorry for that omission. Signing away jurisdiction to the US is a lot more difficult. I'd have to read the actual clause in the actual law, but the summary makes it sound like just one party's existance in the EU makes the jurisdiction clause apply. In any event, in the instant case (star) germany is the chosen jurisdiction. Don Armstrong -- EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise when you step right up to a urinal and use it with a smile. Get Dr. Mary Evers' EQUAL-NOW Adapter (pat. appld. for) -- purse size, fool proof, sanitary -- comes in nine lovely, feminine, psychadelic patterns -- requires no fitting, no prescriptions. -- Robert A Heinlein _I Will Fear No Evil_ p470. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free. That's a rather unsatisfactory fix. Although it does work for most practical purposes, the inability to ship Debian CDs with the necessary docs is quite a hindrance. There's also the PR image of Debian to consider, I think. There's nothing stoping CDs with content that you feel is free enough being made. And frankly, being concerned with a PR image isn't a valid reason to compromise principles. The FSF is no more interested in its public image than Debian is. [If the FSF or Debian were, there's no doubt that RMS, myself, and the rest of us who are non-photogenic would have been hidden away long ago.] If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in its entirety. The choice is yours, really. That's unfair. I have been exclusively a Debian user since 2001. Installing GFDLed stuff from non-free is what I do, but it's inconvenient to track down those packages that aren't installed by default anymore. I agree, which is why I've personally been involved in pressuring the FSF to resolve the remaining issues in the GFDL for quite some time. In my opinion, recognizing the issues and getting them resolved is the right way forward; ignoring them because they come from the FSF is not. The moralistic tone of the installation is also problematic for me, since I'm very proud to say that all of my work is done exclusively with free software (practically the BIOS is the only non-free software I have to use anymore). This an important distinction for the mathematical and scientific work that I do (proprietary software is unscientific, etc). Deciding to use free software is quite often a moralistic stance; where your convictions and morals lie dictate how you feel about this issue. Our way or the highway isn't a nice thought either. Do you really think that the DDs that voted against putting the GFDL in non-free should fork off too? Debian is the best distro out there, and I'm very loyal to it, but I'malso very unhappy with its treatement of the GFDL, and I think this horrible mess should be fixed. If a developer is unable to accept the decision of the majority as the decision of Debian on a particular issue, that's really all that they can do. In the end, of course, the separation of works into main and non-free is necessarily a judgement based on the licenses which the works have. Anyone who disagrees with the final determination made has the ability to decide that the packages in the archive have incorrectly segregated, and filter the Packages.gz files in the archive appropriately. Regardless, in this particular case, the only way to effect the change you are calling for is to have a GR to overturn the existing GR. Discussion of the issue on this mailing list will not cause the GR to disappear. Don Armstrong -- Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: Two different analogous licenses might be: By distributing the covered work, you agree that the copyright holder can sue you for violations of the license. If you distribute the covered work, the licensor agrees not to sue you in any jurisdiction other than Berlin, Germany. Heck, is choice of venue actually different to the combination of those clauses? Yes; choice of venue is better written as if you distribute the convered work, you agree for all suits covering the work to be held in Berlin, Germany. [...] The current clause, though, puts the copyright holder in the dealer's seat, and the house always wins. Well, that's only true over the long term, and I don't think it's necessarily true even over the long term for court cases. Considering Sun's apparent interpretation though, they could easily rewrite this clause to be in the position of resolving abiguities of jurisdiction, or a defensive only jurisidiction clause. Either would resolve my personal problems with the CDDL, and I believe would solve the problems most -legal contributors have with the license. Don Armstrong -- Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). -- Matt Welsh http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: legal question to a new package
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007, Christian Pinedo Zamalloa wrote: 1. Should I include *all* the authors listed in copyrights statements of all files of chessdb in debian/copyright? The main contributor are Shane (scid) and Krikby (chessdb) but other minor contributors are listed through all the source files of the program. The upstreamer's copyright file only lists Shane and Krikby and says that are other contributors and to kown them we should see the source files. If it's possible to do so, yes. If not, then indicate that the number of contributors is so large that it's not practicable to include them all and that people should look at the source to see. [The main reason why people should go through all of the contributors is so that they check that files under incorrect licences haven't suddenly snuck in.] Don Armstrong -- Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence Point. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clickthrough for GPL
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it's really just that installer software like InstallShield have a EULA page by default, and the authors/Win32 packagers decide to display the GPL in there. It's not so much of an issue for NSIS as it's more flexible, but I think it's just default settings designed for proprietary software. There are a couple of these installations which are actually rather amusing, as they show the GPL, and tell you that you can accept it or not at your option, explaining that running the program is free regardless. Don Armstrong -- Herodotus says, Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all. The conscientious historian will correct these defects. -- Mark Twain _A Horse's Tail_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Redistribution of graphics that includes Gentoo logo
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote: I'd like to ask if Debian packages can include graphic that includes Gentoo logo. And if so which conditions those packages need to meet. Gentoo logo artwork license is available at http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml I'm asking about this because Gentoo logo have two different license for commercial and not commercial use. And I decided to remove GRUB splash screen that shows Gentoo logo form grub-splashsimages package, as it was requested in bug #266480. This is the correct option; the logo either should be removed, replaced with the open use debian logo, replaced with a freely licensed image of your choice, or replaced with an empty image. [The main problem with the Gentoo logo is that it doesn't have a licence statement which allows users to modify the logo.] The decision as to which solution to use is of course the maintainer's. Don Armstrong -- PowerPoint is symptomatic of a certain type of bureaucratic environment: one typified by interminable presentations with lots of fussy little bullet-points and flashy dissolves and soundtracks masked into the background, to try to convince the audience that the goon behind the computer has something significant to say. -- Charles Stross _The Jennifer Morgue_ p33 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked for that marketed it in America. And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the anticircumvention clause of the DMCA notwithstanding.] Don Armstrong -- It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject? -- Robert Fisk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked for that marketed it in America. And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the anticircumvention clause of the DMCA notwithstanding.] If he was charged with breaking US law on US soil, fair enough. The problem, as I see it, was that he was ... Charged with breaking US law, as a result of actions he did in Russia, in order to comply with Russian law. THAT is the lunacy (and American megalomania) of the Sklyarov debacle. Except that he wasn't. Reading the complaint and indictment would be a reasonable first start before complaining about American megalomania. [Otherwise you're indulging in the American pastime of rushing to judgement.] In addition to the demonstration, the server from which the ebook processer was distributed was located within the US, as was the payment processing stuff. You can't distribute goods in a country and remain free from being indicted when those goods violate the laws of a country, the sanity of the country's laws notwithstanding. Regardless, we're wildly OT for -legal. Don Armstrong -- When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -- Emo Philips. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#431883: dcraw license does not give permission to distribute modified versions or source alongside
Package: dcraw Version: 7.02-1 Severity: serious On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote: However I would appreciate it if the assembled masses of legal experts could confirm that they agree that this is the case. There's actually an even more fundamental problem with dcraw.c: /* dcraw.c -- Dave Coffin's raw photo decoder Copyright 1997-2007 by Dave Coffin, dcoffin a cybercom o net This is a command-line ANSI C program to convert raw photos from any digital camera on any computer running any operating system. No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However, to lawfully redistribute this code, you must either (a) include full source code* for all executable files containing RESTRICTED functions, (b) remove all RESTRICTED functions, re-implement them, or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted Revision of dcraw.c, or (c) purchase a license from the author. The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED since Revision 1.237. All other code remains free for all uses. *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage qualifies as full source code. $Revision: 1.387 $ $Date: 2007/06/24 00:18:52 $ */ You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modified versions of dcraw.c as required by the DFSG. Secondly, it appears that we must include full source code if we've modified dcraw.c, but we don't do that. We distribute source alongside. If you could get Dave Coffin to explicitely dual license under the GPL, that'd clarify this entire problem. [He seems to want a copyleft, which the GPL would grant.] Text like: Alternately, you can redistribute and/or modify this work under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. would do the trick. Don Armstrong -- If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something. -- Steven Wright http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#431883: dcraw license does not give permission to distribute modified versions or source alongside
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote: The license against which you have raised a bug is not the one that covers the version that is currently part of debian. The appropriate license is here: Right, but the issues present in the current version of the license are also present in the versions which we are distributing. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/dcraw/dcraw_8.39-1/dcraw.copyright You should also probably consider the text on the web page where the source is available http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ : [dcraw is] free (both gratis and libre)... and Unless otherwise noted in the source code, these programs are free for all ^ uses... The underlined section is the important point. I'm almost certain that Dave Coffin intends for the software to be free, but the dissonance between the copyright statement in ddraw.c and the DFSG has to be resolved. [It's also not clear whether free applies to the ability to modify or whether it merely means that you don't have to pay; licencing under the GPL or MIT/Expat would resolve these questions as far as I'm concerned.] My query on debian-legal was with respect to the current license text, rather than the historical license that applies to the version in debian. Yes; both issues came up in the context of re-examining the entire license, though. I've only prsented the entire new license in the bug report, since that was what the original question was about. In any event, let me know if you need any assistance or clarification in your communication with Dave. Don Armstrong -- Filing a bug is probably not going to get it fixed any faster. -- Anthony Towns http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#431883: dcraw license does not give permission to distribute modified versions or source alongside
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote: You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modified versions of dcraw.c as required by the DFSG. I don't agree with you here. It seems to me that we do have permission to distribute modified versions, provided source is included. The license does not explicitely grant the ability to create a derivative work and distribute that work. It merely talks about lawfully redistributing this code. Since it fails to specifically grant that right, we must assume that the default state (All rights reserved) applies. Secondly, it appears that we must include full source code if we've modified dcraw.c, but we don't do that. We distribute source alongside. All that is required in this license is a link to David's home page. The build process does not modify the file dcraw.c, so the footnote clause is applicable to this version of dcraw that would be included in debian. dcraw.c itself isn't currently modfied, but the package does form a derivative work at some level. You can likely argue either way, but given that a need to apply a security patch to dcraw would cause us to run afoul of the license makes it rather problematic from where I'm sitting. If the intent is to create a patch only clause, see the LPPL for an example of a patch clause which is permissible. In any case, please contact the upstream author and have him clarify the license situtation. An explicit licencing under the GPL would resolve all of this for us; Dave Coffin would still be free to offer it under additional terms if he so desired. If you need help drafting the message, let me know. Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LiDIA's statement of GPL only in mailing list archives
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, Ben Finney wrote: An email has been judged sufficient for many Debian packages, if it unambiguously specifies all of the above, and is clearly from the copyright holder. Copy and paste into the 'debian/copyright' file the part of the message that has all that information, along with that message's 'date', 'from', 'message-id' fields. Yeah; bonus points if the message is GPG signed by a key which is in and multiply connected to strongly connected set. Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LiDIA's statement of GPL only in mailing list archives
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: * Don Armstrong: On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, Ben Finney wrote: An email has been judged sufficient for many Debian packages, if it unambiguously specifies all of the above, and is clearly from the copyright holder. Copy and paste into the 'debian/copyright' file the part of the message that has all that information, along with that message's 'date', 'from', 'message-id' fields. Yeah; bonus points if the message is GPG signed by a key which is in and multiply connected to strongly connected set. Yeah, as if this made it a particularly authoritative source for any kind of legal statement. 8-) Short of having a notarized signed statement, it's the best we can do; while there are obviously methods of exploiting it, it's clearly better than just an e-mail. Most importantly, it allows us to have a reasonable belief that the copyright holder has actually licensed us to distribute the work. Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LiDIA's statement of GPL only in mailing list archives
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: * Don Armstrong: On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: * Don Armstrong: On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, Ben Finney wrote: An email has been judged sufficient for many Debian packages, if it unambiguously specifies all of the above, and is clearly from the copyright holder. Copy and paste into the 'debian/copyright' file the part of the message that has all that information, along with that message's 'date', 'from', 'message-id' fields. Yeah; bonus points if the message is GPG signed by a key which is in and multiply connected to strongly connected set. Yeah, as if this made it a particularly authoritative source for any kind of legal statement. 8-) Short of having a notarized signed statement, it's the best we can do; while there are obviously methods of exploiting it, it's clearly better than just an e-mail. Most importantly, it allows us to have a reasonable belief that the copyright holder has actually licensed us to distribute the work. Huh? Why do you think so? In most cases, the difficult question is not whether the statement was made by the purported author, but whether the author is entitled to make that statement on behalf of the actual copyright owner. You'll note that in no case did Ben Finney or myself talk about author; we instead use copyright holder for precisely this reason. Whoever the copyright holder is (or their legal representative) needs to notify the package maintainer or Debian of the license on the code, ideally in some sort of manner that clearly comes from the copyright holder. Don Armstrong -- One day I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time. -- Steven Wright http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about patent notice in copyright header of package exempi
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Michael Biebl wrote: Which contain a copyright header like this: // // Copyright 2002-2005 Adobe Systems Incorporated // All Rights Reserved. // // NOTICE: Adobe permits you to use, modify, and distribute this file // in accordance with the terms // of the Adobe license agreement accompanying it. ^-- where's the Adobe License agreement? // Adobe patent application tracking #P435, entitled 'Unique markers to // simplify embedding data of // one format in a file with a different format', inventors: Sean // Parent, Greg Gilley. // = The interesting part is the second half of the header about the patent application. I was wondering if this poses any problems (in the future) for Debian to distribute this software. TBH I don't really understand how to interpret this sentence. Really depends on what the license agreement says; if we're lucky, it allows us to use it and makes the patent not particularly usefull. Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exporting Issues related with US laws
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Ben Finney wrote: Dererk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The developer of a software I'm about to package, faced the problem of exporting cryptography libraries outside the US, he finally turned out his view and he will make his main repository available outside the US, punctually in the U.K. On reading the whole message, I'd like to summarise for those who (like me) believe they already know the answer: Daniel Drake (a UK citizen currently living in the USA) wants to release, under the GNU LGPL, software that involves fingerprint recognition algorithms. This, according to Daniel's research into the laws, falls foul of US munitions export regulation under a category separate from cryptographic algorithms — and does *not* have an exception allowing export of free software. I don't have an answer, but I hope for a successful conclusion that allows free release of this software. Yeah, this is something that will be hard to answer. Could Daniel Drake write up a brief summation of what he's found so Debian can either get an SPI-hired laywer or the SFLC to determine what needs to be done in addition to what we're already doing so that it can be distributed from main? [It'd give us a starting point to figure out the right questions to ask a lawyer.] Don Armstrong -- The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair. -- Douglas Adams _Mostly Harmless_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Trademark scope (just for the record)
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007, Rick Moen wrote: I was not suggesting that was the case. Read what I _said_, please. I was pointing out one huge clue, from the realm of everyday commerce, that should have alerted Debian users to the fact that, no, it is not true that one must ask a trademark owner's permission to use that mark. Those of us who have discussed this issue at length are quite aware of the scope of trademark law and the obvious cases where we would need permission, and where permission is not required. You'll note that in the discussion we've distinguished between functional and non-functional uses of the trademark. Finally, the precise place where trademark rights stop is necessarily a legal question; the place where we decide to compromise, a community one. Don Armstrong -- As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. -- William O. Douglas http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian WWW use OPL - which is declared non-DFSG free?
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Jari Aalto wrote: Should the WWW pages be relicensed using DFSG compatible licence? Yes, this has been discussed, and is most likely going to happen. However, it requires getting all contributors to agree, which will require a heroic effort. Don Armstrong -- A Democracy lead by politicians and political parties, fails. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, John Halton wrote: 1. A game system comprising: an input apparatus which is manipulated by a player; performance data memory device which stores performance data stipulating a series of manipulations of said input apparatus arranged in correspondence with a predetermined musical piece; Interesting that they've managed to patent sheet music stored in a computer. manipulation guide device which specifies the series of manipulations of said input apparatus arranged in correspondence with said musical piece to the player based on said performance data; said performance data comprising information which specifies timings of manipulations relating to at least one timing manipulation member provided on said input apparatus, and information which specifies at least one selection manipulation member to be manipulated in correspondence with the manipulation of said timing manipulation member from a plurality of selection manipulation members provided on said input apparatus; And then continue to even more precisely define digital sheet music. Oh well; it's not like patent examiners are actually capable of understanding the patents which they are examining. Don Armstrong -- A Democracy lead by politicians and political parties, fails. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Joe Smith wrote: That is not sheet music, but more of a raw storage of notes, timings, and durations (not too unlike a midi file). What else is sheet music but a storage form of notes, timings and durations? But the key here is that this specifies that the interface must have two different types of controls. One that must be pressed with the correct timing (the strum bar on a Guitar Hero controler) as well as selection buttons that need not be pushed with exact timing, but need only be pushed in the right combination when the timing control is pushed. So you have an instrument which has to preselect a note, and another which much be pressed with exact timing. Most wind instruments satisfy that requirement. [Not that any of this really matters, but I'd be rather surprised if someone who wanted to couldn't kill this off with prior art based on the bit I've seen.] Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games
[Going wildly OT for fun; further messages will be sent individually.] On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Joe Smith wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What else is sheet music but a storage form of notes, timings and durations? I agrue that sheet music differs significantly from midi files, although it is generaly possible to generate one from the other with a reasonable level of accuracy. The only difference is that midi files contain per-note velocity information[1] which is slightly different from the expression information contained in sheet music. [And in any event, this system doesn't discuss velocity.] Basically, AIUI that requirement is about a machine readable representation of the notes, etc. I will agree that at least some sheet music creation software must store data in a format that qualifies. All sheet music digitally encoded is a machine readable representation of notes, duration and expression; it can't be anything else or it isn't sheet music. So you have an instrument which has to preselect a note, and another which much be pressed with exact timing. Most wind instruments satisfy that requirement. True enough. However, to find prior art for this claim would likely require we find a game system which shows players some form of sheet music representation of data stored in a more machine readable format , to which such a wind instrument is played. Midi wind instruments have existed for at least 15 years... Don Armstrong 1: There's also various after-touch midi control codes, but most of that can be expressed in music. -- Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or derring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer to achieve immortality by not dying. -- Terry Pratchet _The Color of Magic_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ms-sys contains MBRs which are copyrighted by Microsoft
severity 425943 serious retitle 425943 ms-sys contains MBRs which are copyrighted by Microsoft thanks ms-sys contains verbatim copies of the master boot records of windows 2000 and windows 95B et al. While it would be valid to reimplement an MBR in such a way that it was functionally similar to an MBR that boots these MS operating systems, the length and expressive content of the MBR makes it rather likely that it is copyrightable, and that we have not been granted the right to distribute, nor is the assembly in question licensed in accordance with the DFSG (nor is the assembly even actually present, which falls afoul of DFSG §2). Finally, debian/copyright does not properly discuss this problem at all, nor does it mention the copyrights on syslinux's mbr or any of the other mbrs which are present. Possible solutions to the problem are: 1) Re-implement any MBRs for which the source/copyright is not available. 2) Get permission to distribute and modify the MBR from MS and distribute a disassembled and commented version; if distribution only, move ms-sys to non-free. 3) Remove ms-sys from the archive I strongly suggest if #1 or #2 doesn't occur relatively rapidly that #3 is taken as an interim measure until it can be rectified. Don Armstrong -- I shall require that [a scientific system's] logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of emperical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an emperical scientific system to be refuted by experience. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §6 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: New program based on 2 differently-licensed previous ones
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Cameron Dale wrote: I'm creating a new program for Debian (not just packaging, but the entire program), and I have some questions about the license I can use. Some parts of the code are based on a previous work released under the MIT license, while some other small parts are based on GPL (v2) code from a different work. My questions are these: 1) Can I release the entire program under the GPL? Assuming that the actual MIT licensed used is compatible with the GPL, yes. 2) Do I NEED to make reference to the other works? Should I? You need to keep the author's copyright and license statements intact. 3) Can I remove the headers in the files that I have modified that state the original authors and licenses of the files? You shouldn't remove them. You should just indicate the extent of the code that is available under MIT license, and the code that is new and only available under GPL, to the extent that is possible. Don Armstrong -- Your village called. They want their idiot back. -- xkcd http://xkcd.com/c23.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: logwatch: list of copyright holders
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Willi Mann wrote: Can you explain to me what the consequences of an imcomplete list of copyright holders would be? It should make it easier for me to argue upstream. The most important one is that not having all of the copyright holders represented means that we don't actually know what terms we are able to distribute the final work. A component of a work which is unlicenced makes the entire work undistributable. Don Armstrong -- Frankly, if ignoring inane opinions and noisy people and not flaming them to crisp is bad behaviour, I have not yet achieved a state of nirvana. -- Manoj Srivastava in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: logwatch: list of copyright holders
NB: If you can keep attribution intact in the future, that would help a lot. On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Willi Mann wrote: The most important one is that not having all of the copyright holders represented means that we don't actually know what terms we are able to distribute the final work. A component of a work which is unlicenced makes the entire work undistributable. I don't understand why this is solved by a list of copyright holders. I always assumed it is solved by clear licensing terms. Please give me a clear argument, to ensure that I can convince upstream. It's not solved by having a list of the copyright holders. It is solved by having all the copyright holders agreement to the licencing terms, which is what represented refers to. What the files say isn't as important as what the licencing terms actually are. IANAL, but I don't think so, or better, I don't agree to one assumption. Simple patches are not copyrightable (so FSF doesn't require copyright transfer). You'll note that I talk about copyright holders; the component in the last sentence is refering to components which are copyrightable. That said, in the absence of legal advice to the contrary, the best course is to assume that everything is copyrighted, and get the contributor to agree to the licensing terms. On the other hand if some author, with or without copyright notice in the source code, later turns up and says, I'm copyright holder and I didn't give permission to redistribute, the judge will probably laugh at him and tell him, that he gave implicit permission by sending a patch to the project maintainer. But IANAL. Once you get to that point, you've got a problem. Expecting the legal system to act in a particular way when there are concrete steps that can easily be taken to cause it to act that way is silly. In any case, the actual state of the contributors and whether they have been contacted and have acquiesced to the licensing terms needs to be stated in the copyright file so the ftpmasters and anyone else who uses this program can make an informed decision as to whether to include it in the archive or use it themselves. Don Armstrong -- When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. -- Edmund Burke Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discoontents http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions about liblouis
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Eitan Isaacson wrote: You are right that I insisted on tables being made part of the open source archive. A translator without tables is not very useful. The major reason that *** supported development of an open source translator was to encourage others throughout the world to use it as their braille translator and to develop excellent tables for their language. The world needs an excellent translator that agencies and companies can use for their own purposes without needing to continually re-invent the wheel. The GPL pretty much does this, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to impose any additional restrictions beyond what the GPL imposes. Don Armstrong -- You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember when you are old. -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p413) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NagiosQL License
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Hendrik Frenzel wrote: i ITP nagiosql which license[0] states the New BSD License. I think this package is non-free as it restricts the distribution of source and binary packages: This is nothing more than the 1,2,4-clause BSD license with s/the University/Martin Willisegger/; it's perfectly acceptable for main. Don Armstrong -- There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: The basic requirements are: (AFAIK) - not copylefted, so we can include the document in another document - suitable for documents - require changing title/authorship upon changes (see above) There's really no need to require changing the title, since official DEP can be dealt with by just distributing them with a known site and signing them with appropriate keys or similar, and you can handle derivatives simply by suggesting that they change the title. Could you recommend one? MIT/X11 with minor changes: --- Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work and associated files (the Work), to deal in the Work without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Work. THE WORK IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WORK BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE WORK. Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the contributors to this Work shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Work without prior written authorization from the contributor(s) whose name(s) are to be used. --- Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Memo on video game thumbnails]
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Could you instead please give us the *text* of their response? That would make it much more accessible to followers in this discusion. Considering that the pdf is text-less, it seems clear that the text is not available. Feel free to OCR or transcribe it, though. Don Armstrong -- It was said that life was cheap in Ankh-Morpork. This was, of course, completely wrong. Life was often very expensive; you could get death for free. -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p25 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote: What I meant is that while GPL uses copyright to give people rights, it does not restrict people beyond what copyright already imposes. It's not clear that the AGPLv3 does either; public performance of a work is not a right granted by copyright law (at least in the US). Don Armstrong -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:07:18 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote: What I meant is that while GPL uses copyright to give people rights, it does not restrict people beyond what copyright already imposes. It's not clear that the AGPLv3 does either; public performance of a work is not a right granted by copyright law (at least in the US). I don't recall whether we concluded that running, say, Apache on a publicly-accessible host is a public performance of the Apache web server: I don't believe we have concluded either way about this, and frankly, I suspect that even if we had, any conclusion in this area is premature without clear precedent in multiple jurisdicitions. is this the case (at least in the US)? Unfortunatly I do not have time to dig up relevant case law (nor am I sure that it exists). That said, it seems likely a priori that this argument can be made. In light of this, claiming categorically that the AGPLv3 restricts rights beyond what copyright already does is currently unfounded. It may, or it may not. Don Armstrong -- Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you really want to test his character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: As an American, I cannot export cryptographic software. As a result, I don't work on it. That doesn't prevent me from building or modifying software that utilizes those components, as those components are imported. You still have to arrange to convey the Corresponding Source, which includes these components, which means that you may be exporting or facilitating the exportation of cryptographic software. Don Armstrong -- He no longer wished to be dead. At the same time, it cannot be said that he was glad to be alive. But at least he did not resent it. He was alive, and the stubbornness of this fact had little by little begun to fascinate him -- as if he had managed to outlive himself, as if he were somehow living a posthumous life. -- Paul Auster _City of Glass_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal for you. This is not an issue. A license can't force you to do something that contradicts a higher law. It's an issue, because it means that in such cases you have no choice but to not use or distribute the work. I'm undecided as to whether it's a DFSG freeness issue, but it's certainly something to be aware of as a practical matter when it comes to distribution within Debian. Don Armstrong -- I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. -- Douglas Adams _The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Ian Jackson wrote: Miriam Ruiz writes (Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?): Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free? Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous, It's probably not onerous, but it's certainly non-trivial. The class of things that fall under Corresponding Source is not vanishingly small, and for Debian to arrange for our users to easily and trivially satisfy this requirement is going to be difficult, especially for versions which are not part of a stable release.[1] and there is an important class of sitations where that extra restriction is very important to stop someone making the code effectively proprietary. Right. I personally believe blocking this case of exploitation of Free Software is desirable; my only reservation is with the execution. [The Afferro GPL v3 is quite a bit better than the earlier versions in this regards, but there are still issues, some of which we may end up deciding we need to live with in order to obtain that class of protection.] Don Armstrong 1: It basically mandates the usage of snapshot.debian.net to provide links to the corresponding source of the version which is actually being used. I've no doubt that this the right thing to do always, but it's not something that we guarantee now. -- I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee. That leaves the rest of the license intact. A court could do anything it wants. It could declare the sky mauve, require you to stand on your head with a sign that says This way to Babylon, or any number of insanities. However, when there is clearly a conservative, risk-averse position that can be taken, that's what we should take if possible. In this case, assuming that the license will remain intact is the conservative position. Don Armstrong -- G: If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do? EB: Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area. -- Somewhere in No Man's Land, BA4 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only to those who ask. The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do to the binaries, which is something that is easily solvable using the same distribution mechanism at distribution time. In this way, we don't have to even give source to those who ask.[1] The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Resolving this issue as a practical matter for all of our users all of the time is non-trivial until such a time as we have a working snapshot.d.o. [I'd be interesting in seeing someone who has an AGPLv3 work in use which actually satifies the terms of the AGPLv3 (and properly tracks upgrades of packages) without reliance on system library exemptions to avoid actually distributing the Corresponding Source.] Don Armstrong 1: Though obviously we should as good members of the FOSS community. -- Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or derring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer to achieve immortality by not dying. -- Terry Pratchet _The Color of Magic_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do to the binaries, And doesn't the AGPL too? Both the program and the source over the network? No, it requires distribution of source at use time, not distribution time. [People use a version of a program and its dependencies over a much longer time than Debian traditionally distributes it.] The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here. And the link has to go to somewhere where the source actually exists. Try doing that currently for a package and all of the package's recursive dependencies which was in testing 3 months ago, but has since been superseded. Don Armstrong -- I have no use for before and after pictures. I can't remember starting, and I'm never done. -- a softer world #221 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=221 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here. And the link has to go to somewhere where the source actually exists. Try doing that currently for a package and all of the package's recursive dependencies which was in testing 3 months ago, but has since been superseded. I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing source for all other packages. We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We (generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped distributing the binary. The AGPL requires distribution of source at any time that the application is used. The GPL does not. This is part and parcel of the ASP loophole that the AGPL is trying to close, and the very reason that the AGPL exists in the first place. Are you saying the burden is going to be in updating those links that say where to get the source, making the patchwork for packaging AGPL software more tedious? The GPL says three years, right? No, the path through the GPL that we use says equivalent access. (We distribute binaries under 6d precisely so our mirror operators do not have to deal with the tedious bookkeeping of satifying 6c.) [I really recommend reading the GPL and AGPL strongly; it's a necessary pre-requisite for any discussion of them.] Don Armstrong 1: There are probably some exceptions out there; ISTR archive.d.o only having source in some cases. -- The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila -- Mitch Ratcliffe http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: The AGPLv3 only requires the distribution of /modified/ source. The things that Debian distributes which are not modified are vanishingly small (and all of the examples I can think of are cases where Debian Developers are the upstream too.) So we're going to be discussing things which are modified in all cases. If Debian distributes their packaged version, and that version is served by a 3rd party for other users unmodified, that 3rd party is not bound by the distribution terms of section 13. If this is actually the proper interpretation, then it renders the AGPL useless in its entirety. In short, this is the idea that section 13 only applies at the time of modification, and so long as the propagation of source works at that instant, everything is good. It's an interesting theory, and probably one that should be run by the FSF, since I'm certain it was not the intent of the drafters at all. Further, I do not read in the license that distribution of source *must* happen when the application is used. You have to make it available on a remote server, that is all. That server goes down, A server which is down does not provid[e] access to the Corresponding Source. yes it's a problem you need to solve, but it's not like the lawyers come out. If it's not being made available, you're in violation of the AGPL, and are subject to the terms of Section 8. If it's your first time, you have a 30 day grace period to cure the breech, but the second time can be fatal. So yes, the lawyers can come out and play immediately if they wish. Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, Chew more! Do more! The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's freedom to exploit the ASP loophole. I don't believe anyone here has argued that people exploiting the ASP loophole is a good thing, so that impression is likely due to preconceived goals held for the outcome of this discussion. This discussion is about the way in which the AGPL closes the ASP loophole and whether that way is or is not in conflict with the DFSG. Secondarily, whether it is possible for Debian and/or Debian's user's to satisfy the terms of the AGPL as a practical matter. Discussions as to whether the AGPL is a good thing, or whether the DFSG should be modified (assuming it needs to be) are tertiary to determining whether it complies with the DFSG or not, and whether Debian can actually satisfy the AGPL. We may have to go there eventually, but without resolving the first questions, going there is premature. Please, help us all by working to address the first to questions in the framework of the DFSG. Don Armstrong -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of math instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: Clearly you cannot escape the terms of the GPL by splitting the work into different packages, otherwise everyone would do this. There are many cases where you can, actually. game+working sample data, with more complex data distributed separately is a classical example. Since the GPL does not apply to actual use, and game+working sample data forms a work on its own, there's no problem here. It's the same issue with a standard interface and GPL code; if there's a documented interface, and things that are legitimately separate works can be plugged in, everything is perfectly fine. That said, there's no reason *not* to distribute the data under the same license as the codebase. Finally, please refrain from attacking other people on this list: casting aspersions on others in the process of making an argument makes others less likely to listen to that argument (or even future arguments made) at all. Don Armstrong -- America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of socially responsible centurions. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant of license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3. This would have a license grant something like: This work is free software: you may … under the terms of the GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of that license or, at your option, any later version. For the purpose of this grant of license under the GNU General Public License, the “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it; the “object code” means any non-source form of a work. This is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly useful. If you think this is a real problem, your only real option is to use GPLv3. I personally think it isn't, but that's my own opinion, not advice to you. [I'd be really surprised if anyone would ever bother to exploit this loophole in the case of graphics. I'd expect someone who could actually litigate it would almost certainly buckle under community pressure, and people who don't have the money to would likely settle for releasing the source.] Don Armstrong -- N: Why should I believe that? B: Because it's a fact. N: Fact? B: F, A, C, T... fact N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your argument? B: It IS true. -- Ploy http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to object code which was not previously included. You could easily write a set of definitions which translated the GPL into an entirely different license.[0] If GPLv2 does not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly useful. What the GPLv2 means is partly up to the intent of the persons drafting that document, but the meaning *for a particular work* must surely take strong influence from the intent of the party granting license to that work. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't influence the license of any other work, which is exactly why this is a bad idea. You're free to add any additional restrictions to your GPLed work that you want,[1] whether through interpretations or by changing the GPL itself. That doesn't obviate the need for you to comply with the terms of GPLed works which you do not own the copyright of. Don Armstrong 1: Though of course, the distributability of such works by anyone but the copyright holder may be an open question. -- No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free [...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. -- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote: ATTENTION!! The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to ask for permission. Grants only right to use, which is vague but not normally taken to mean more than perform or run; i.e. a read-only use. How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this license in your analysis and go straight to a sentence that is nothing more than a description of a single instance of license interpretation? The first sentence is nearly meaningless, and free of content that would help understand precisely what is meant by totally free. Perhaps someone who understands the language in which this license was written could weigh in and change the interpretation, but based on the translation we were given, it is not DFSG free. The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay for these works. Likewise, if use means just perform, then it's totally different from a standin for use in any manner, including but not limited to modifcation, distribution, and performance. Since it's not clear that we've actually been granted the rights that we need, we should in general assume that we haven't. All of that said and done, if the copyright holder actually means for the work to be DFSG free, using a license that is trivially understood to be DFSG free is ideal. Don Armstrong -- Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay for these works. Given the subsequent This means [use for any purpose] language, I think free as in beer is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation of that). The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any information as to what the underlying words that were translated actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages. Don Armstrong -- EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise when you step right up to a urinal and use it with a smile. Get Dr. Mary Evers' EQUAL-NOW Adapter (pat. appld. for) -- purse size, fool proof, sanitary -- comes in nine lovely, feminine, psychedelic patterns -- requires no fitting, no prescriptions. -- Robert A Heinlein _I Will Fear No Evil_ p470. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:54:02 pm Don Armstrong wrote: The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any information as to what the underlying words that were translated actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages. Which is certainly a fair point... but I'm thinking the initial poster is a native speaker, and isn't going to insert terms like rights into sentences that is talking about costs. A right to use a copyrighted work traditionally involves cost; these are not orthogonal concepts. Also, that second sentence would have to be essentially made-up if the first sentence is really talking about money. It's possible to interpret it in an entirely consistent manner if it's just refering to performance and not modification. It wouldn't be the first time that someone used two sentences to amplify or expand the point that they are making in the first. For example, I'm going to do so right here. Don Armstrong -- You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember when you are old. -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p413) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non free license?
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Pietro Battiston wrote: I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0]. The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from (eventual) maintainer, neither from ftp-masters. I'd try asking again, since it's definetly not because of the 1,2,4 clause BSD license you've shown below. [Though it may be from some fragment of code that isn't actually under this license; you need to check the source code yourself to see if that's the case.] Don Armstrong -- I'm wrong to criticize the valor of your brave men. It's important to die for one's country when it means being the subject of a king who wears a ruffled collar or a pleated one. -- Cyrano de Bergerac http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. [For non-copyleft works, however, your statement is correct.] Don Armstrong -- If you find it impossible to believe that the universe didn't have a creator, why don't you find it impossible that your creator didn't have one either? -- Anonymous Coward http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167556cid=13970629 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. If the work as distributed *by the author* lacks something one might call source, a recipient may still redistribute whatever he received. That's not correct, unless you're in a locality that has some form of the First Sale doctrine. Debian doesn't ever distribute under the first sale doctrine, and furthermore, Debian modifies everything that is distributed (even if just to package it), so it doesn't apply either. [And we certainly don't distribute in 1:1 ratio from the copies we obtain from original author.] Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source available, which we cannot. Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires distributing the corresponding machine-readable source code. If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). Don Armstrong -- Information wants to be free to kill again. -- Red Robot http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1372 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the requirements of the GPL, or any license, extend backwards, prior to the point it was applied. No, that's not my argument at all.[1] I very carefully do not discuss what the corresponding source is. I do this for two reasons: 1) what it is is entirely orthogonal to whether we must distribute it to satisfy the GPL 2) a determination of what it is requires a specific work with information about the license being applied and the method used to generate the work. That said, I'll indulge myself in the orthogonality: For photographs, the argument about what constitutes source can easily become absurd. I can easily imagine a photograph where the preferred form for modification is the depicted scene itself, rather than its depiction. To created a modified photo, the photographer would rearrange the scene and make a new photo, not alter an existing one. Does this mean a photo of this scene cannot be distributed under the GPL (unless the physical scene is also included)? If that is what the Corresponding Source is, sure. I think such a determination would not be sensible. I even drafted language some time ago to attempt to resolve this abiguity (prefered form of the work for modification or the digitally-encodeable transformation thereof). Similarly, when I write a computer programme, a lot of ideas, structures, etc. that could be seen as source remain as thoughts in my brain, never to be written down. Such ephemeral things do not have much in the way of form, so they're not the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it in my opinion. (And presumably, not in yours either.) Don Armstrong 1: I should note that belittling remarks like Your argument, if it can be called that aren't particularly conducive to polite conversation or indeed any further consideration of this subthread by me. -- No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted.), but I want to make sure. Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] Don Armstrong -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to make the whole lot free? If you don't want to require this, you don't want copyleft. There's no license that I'm aware of that distinguishes between little bit, but still copyrightable and entire thing. [And it'd be one of those things that you'd almost be asking for litigation to decide, so not terribly useful.] Plus, it's not like you couldn't use GPL and advertise that you'd license smaller bits under different licences for people who couldn't comply with the GPL. And I think RMS is a bit on my side - after all he did write the LGPL... For libraries so that they would be widely used, not for general copyleft usage. Don Armstrong -- Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. -- W. Churchill http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Consider how hard it would be to have the law say products must contain warnings about nuts, unless the presence of nuts is sufficiently obvious anyway. I've no clue about the UK, but in the US, the law actually deals with this problem. See Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act part w. We're so insanely offtopic now, though, that's it's almost comedic. Don Armstrong -- I was thinking seven figures, he said, but I would have taken a hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person. [All for a moldy bottle of tropicana.] -- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: However, the Francis Leboutte mapping is now included in Debian. This means we should settle on this issue: if we consider it non-free, we must remove this layout (and all derivatives) from the distribution; if we don’t, there’s no barrier against including some variants. I’d tend to say we should opt for the conservative approach and remove them; despite the fact that I like the mapping, we shouldn’t include software with such an unclear copyright status. Is there any hope of getting Leboutte to license this under CC without the NC and ND clauses or retract his claims? Alternatively, can someone generate a clean-room implementation of the appropriate layout? I'm of the opinion that if we are to distribute the layout, and we are unable to do the two things above, we need to get legal advice, and then specificially ignore the ND clause by distributing a derived version. I'm slightly concerned about this layout hanging around and then a small company who uses it because it was distributed in Debian being sued. Don Armstrong -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion [...] refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it---and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski, Dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer (CV-00-00411-WBS p5983-4) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 16 mars 2009 à 11:18 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : Is there any hope of getting Leboutte to license this under CC without the NC and ND clauses or retract his claims? I don’t think so, but maybe an open source evangelist would have better luck. You'd probably know people who'd be more likely to get Leboutte's attention (and speak french); try to enlist one of them. Alternatively, can someone generate a clean-room implementation of the appropriate layout? What do you mean by “clean-room”? Both X11 implementations were made from scratch, it’s just that Francis Leboutte claims they are a derived work of his layout. I mean that the X11 implementations were made without direct reference to potentially copyrighted portions of Francis Leboutte's implementation. If that's the case, then we can distribute these versions, ditch Leboutte's implementation, and sleep soundly while ignoring threats about them. I think we’re not at risk of anyone being sued as long as we don’t distribute a derived version. However this particular requirement makes the layout non-free. Right. I'm just concerned about one of the derivatives of Debian naïvely distributing a derived version if it's distributed in main, and so if we go that way, I'd want to force Leboutte's hand. [If it's in non-free, it doesn't make any difference to me.] Don Armstrong -- Information wants to be free to kill again. -- Red Robot http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1372 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Mono License changes over time and the risks this is presenting.
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009, Peter Dolding wrote: non-free is the section I mean. Items in there have restrictions that could mean they are non free. non-free is for things which we can distribute legally but do not meet the DFSG. Things that are controlled by patents which are actively enforced for which we do not have a license to distribute and our users to use cannot be legally distributed, and therefore cannot be in non-free. FWICT, the .NET patents[1] don't meet the bar of being actively enforced. I personally wouldn't recommend that people develop with them, but that has little to nothing to do with whether we distribute them in main or people decide to build on them. Don Armstrong 1: I honestly don't even know *which* specific patents we're talking about here; it's all awash in FUD. -- Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved. -- Craig Dickson in 20020909231134.ga18...@linux700.localnet http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
