Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have packaged an unofficial Debian package containing French fortunes
cookies, and I'd like to upload it into the Debian archive.
For that, I have to verify the copyright is compliant which the DFSG, but
there is either no copyright, or presumed to be
Thomas Thurman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A question I'm curious about:
/usr/doc/bible-kjv/copyright and /usr/doc/bible-kjv-text/copyright say:
: The copyright for the King James Version text of the Bible is expired
: since the translation was done in 1611 under King James the first of
: Great
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
If the existence of such an exception made software non-free, then
DFSG-free software could be made
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
C Many packages contain preprints or reprints of academic papers
C as part of their documentation. In many cases, there is no
C ``source'' available for these documents -- they are
C distributed as PostScript or PDF files.
One case that seems
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The GPL says you only have to _offer_ them the source. If they
want it on physical media you can tell them to bring a floppy to
office hours; otherwise just put it on a web site.
That's not sufficient according to my reading. There are exactly
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Intel is granting specific rights which do not extend to all GPL
software. Therefore, clause 7 of the GPL comes into effect, and we
can't distribute GPL'd works which include this Intel code. Clause 7
is actually quite clear about this.
I'm not totally
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's been said, over and over. The problem is that any kind of
requirement that forces people to send back changes upstream is not
DFSG-free.
Right, but you must send your changes back upstream requirements are
not DFSG-free.
I am surprised by
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib licence, for example,
which contains the condition:
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
The FSF says that this is compatible with the GPL, but I don't understand
how
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1) IBM is only talking about software patents. I'm willing to concede
that software patents constitute a much more direct threat to free
software than traditional patents.
Why should that matter in your eyes?
Because, we're talking about
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's at least two important differences:
1) IBM is only talking about software patents. I'm willing to concede
that software patents constitute a much more direct threat to free
software than traditional patents.
2) The only thing that
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://crystal.win.tue.nl/license/rpl.html
Clause 8.2(b) seems to be a showstopper:
| 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement
| claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer
| or a Contributor (the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think the purpose of the clause is not to punish patenteers but to
protect the authors.
There is no protection to be gained here, unless the authors want
protection for their own unlawful patent infringements.
Patents that concern the licenced
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This came up in the past and I pointed out that for example Solaris
does not set up such a second distribution channel even though they
distribute GPLed code on the main Solaris (8 and beyond) CDs.
This is interesting. Presumably there are GPL programs linked
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have. Try the Choral Public Domain License
(http://cpdl.snaptel.com/license.htm), which is essentially the GPL with
software replaced by music. Was constructing that licence a
copyright infringement?
Perhaps, but the FSF is not obligated to pursue it, are
Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Licenses have always been declared out of territory, since there's no
need to modify them, and we don't want to argue with various authors
over the license of the license.
There's been several instances of GPL-ripoffs, e.g. people basing
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The notion that
standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of
SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc.
IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they?
When writing a new version of a standard it is often convenient to
borrow text from the
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes. I have no objection to letting the code in, but I do take exception
to this line of reasoning. Whether or not HP does it makes no difference
to us. Even it currently being in Debian is no proof of it being
acceptable; every so often we come across a
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Silly, philosophical point: if the author is dead, then there is a
greatly reduced risk of the author coming back and clarifying the
licence, so presumably you can interpret the licence more broadly in
that case.
Of course, you've got the possibility of
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Basically, this whole part of the
argument is a large no-op, and really shouldn't have been brought up in
the first place unless you think it's time to consider the copyright on
licenses as a valid thing in determining the DFSG-freeness or worth of
inclusion in
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The funny part is the selfsame stuff that makes GIF viewers non-free is
blithely in gzip. Ah well, consistency has never been a hallmark of
patents WRT non-free.
Does Debian have any kind of policy on patents at all?
Some random observations and questions:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nothing in the DFSG seems to refer to patents, so I don't see how a
patent can make a program non-free in the DFSG sense. Also, the USA
isn't the only country in the world to have software patents
(there's also Japan), so non-us doesn't seem very
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Please note that I am not a lawyer and I am not speaking on behalf of
Debian.
When I understand the stuff on http://cdimages.debian.org
correctly, Debian suggests to sell also incomplete sets of the
official CDs, e.g. only Binary-1. If it is
Trimaran (www.trimaran.org) is a compiler infrastructure for research,
and it looks quite interesting.
It is clearly not DFSG-free, because the licence gives permission for
academic, research and internal business purposes only. Also it is
GPL-incompatible, of course. However, in other respects
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
wise? IIRC, should it
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
5. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how
to obtain complete source code for the OpenPBS software and any
modifications and/or additions to the OpenPBS software. The source code
must either be included in the distribution or be
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
GPL-ish stuff, the only problem is that you theoretically cannot use the
OpenPBS license on contributed code, since it implies restrictions (there
goes DFSG 3). In fact, the only way you could theoretically contribute
code is to make the contributions PD,
NB: I'm not a lawyer, so don't take anything I write too seriously.
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi; me again. Question this time regards packaging Jython (www.jython.org),
a pure Java implementation of python.
Jython is currently subject to a DFSG-compilant but possibly GPL-incompatible
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If X is illegal (or violates a civil law) for a single person to do,
then as a rule, it is also illegal (or violates civil law) for a group
of people acting in cahoots to do it, no matter how they divide up the
tasks.
I agree absolutely.
Obviously the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The linking issue is a whole other matter. I am saying there that an
end-user has, subject to and in compliance with the GPL license terms, a
wide right to modify on the end-user's computer.
I believe you're talking about fair use.
Does fair use apply
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(1) The idea that compiling and linking a program is not restricted by
copyright; you don't need special permission to compile and link a
program once you have obtained a copy of it.
But this is a confusion. In one sense it's true, but in another
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Linking is not necessarily copyright violation, but if combined with
certain other acts, the whole thing, including all its parts, are an
instance of illegal copying. The total combination would indeed have
to be an act of copying, but it's quite
none [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
([T]here can be no contributory infringement by a
defendant without direct infringement by another.)
Henning's point which I believe is a valid one is that an end-user needs to
infringe in order for someone else to be found a contributory infringer. If
the end-users
Chloe Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is what I thought. So contributory infringement is not relevant
here. By ordering us to read up about contributory infringement, I
think Raul is trying to deliberately waste our time! :-)
Certainly Raul is not wasting our time. It is a valid issue. I
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Who knows, for a court it might be enough that you used the GPL'ed stuff for
your development, and link to it on some web page. I don't know, as IANAL.
Yes, courts are very unpredictable. However, we shouldn't get too
obsessed about what a court might or
Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Here's a teaser for all the licence enthusiasts here.
FreeDOS includes components which are licensed under the GPL. Those
components are currently built with a compiler from Borland, and
consequently linked with the C library that comes with it. The licence
I haven't made up my mind which side I'm on, but here are some more
random criticisms.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then: P is the source code for a program which includes L. A is
instructing people to download L (if necessary) to compile P.
This is a clear attempt to evade the copyright
Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My program works well without the GPL library. Now if I sell this program,
and add a module that the customer may link with the GPL library, would I
violate the GPL of the library, and why ? If the customer linked in the
module, would he violate the GPL, and
Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Your code becomes a derived work of the library you linked with because you
included the header files that are a part of that library into the text of
your program when you compiled it.
For the sake of argument, and to keep this discussion focused, let's
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On the other hand, if we can't modify, what purpose is served
by us distributing it at all? It's available from the Intel
website, right? It's just a file that gets installed by the loader,
right? There's no integration issue.
There are two advantages to
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But there is annother difficult. To write BIOS we use assembler because
we have much control to hardware, to write microcode I think they don't
use any language, to be more direct. They write (maybe) directly the bit
or byte. Thus there exists only binary
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
3) Intel calls microcode data file (see the email from
Intel).
Thus no software, no restriction in GPL and DFSG (like
strictly copyright
for distribute a license) (and microcode is similar: you
can distribute,
but not modify).
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Lame is already included in the Debian archives in libmp3lame_audioenc.so.0
in libavifile in debian/main. It's in shared library form, but appears to be
a fully functional mpeg-1 layer 3 encoder and not just a wrapper that
invokes a lame binary the user
Adam J. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You might wonder why am I also concerned about distribution
of the kernel _sources_. First of all, I believe that there may be a
contributory infringement problem with machinations (my word) where
the end result is the delivery of a work whose
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, I agree. Then you need to make sure all of the firmware images in
the kernel tree are removed from the Debian version of the kernel.
Or you could just put the kernel into non-free. It's not really an
essential part of Debian, now that there's Debian GNU/Hurd as
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know for books, the copyright on the collection as a whole (including
cover art, etc) is separate from the copyright on the individual stories.
I assume this is similar.
This is true, and related to the case. But the copyright on the whole
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were
put there knowing that)
What are they? They
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
e.g. doc-rfc ?
The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
doesn't mean ...
Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified except by the
holder
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The fact is that it is against the FSF's goals to have the GPL be at all
modifyable. Given that our goals are similar, we're not likely to declare
the GPL as non-free. Suggesting that we should, as you seem to be doing,
can only be regarded as flamebait and
Aaron Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem? In a nutshell, any outgoing information, software
and/or services of your original copyright/license/IP are dual
copyrighted/licensed to Microsoft c/o this new agreement. This can
be _very_dangerous_ from the standpoint of free software
Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As I point out below, the legal question is whether or not MS has any
claim to copyrighted materials NOT authored by the person using the
service.
You mean, if someone, without Sun's permission, sends the Solaris
source code to a hotmail address, does
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But it might also be argued that making exceptions even for software
patenteers and child pornographers is a slippery slope which we should
stay away from.
What does discriminate mean, anyway? I think usually it means making
an arbitrary or unnecessary
Bob McElrath [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is the author aware that the extra clauses also make his license
incompatible with the GPL? This means he can't use GPL code from
other programs in FilterProxy.
Could you clarify this for me? How is a usage restriction in violation
of the GPL? How does
Paul Kienzle [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is clearly redundant and awkward, so how about:
This program is provided as is without warranty of any
kind. Use it at your own risk.
Nah, that's way too snappy. How about:
11. FOR REASONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FACT THAT
I wonder this license permits someone to USE the file...
I think that's implicit. Implicit mightn't be good enough though.
Why might one need permission in order to use the file? Does using the
file involve copying it in some way that might be restricted by
copyright law, or is there some
There was 0zl position in their financial books for linux system
(red-hat I think) and staroffice suite.
Probably they should not have mentioned it in their financial books
if it is not a physical item and they didn't pay for it. I mean, do
they put sunlight and gravity in their financial
Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If someone wants to distribute a proprietary module, let them
distribute it separately, and tell the user that it's there
responsibility to link it. Yes, it's a pain on the users, but if you
don't like it, use the GPL.
I sometimes think the GPL might be
Apparently SSL support will be disabled in future Mutt packages due to
yet another GPL-incompatibility problem.
You all know the sort of problem: according to some people's
understanding of the GPL and copyright law, GPL software X cannot be
linked with GPL-incompatible software Y and then
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I thought we had proposed a reasonably decent paragraph to the KDE
people? Can't that be dusted off and used in different contexts?
Maybe. I haven't seen that paragraph.
In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public Licence, if
this software
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The LGPL doesn't seem to prevent someone from adding a non-free
extension to a program. My clause is supposed to prevent the worst
abuses by insisting that the added code can reasonably be considered
an independent and separate work.
That just means that
I'd be interested to know what this means:
7. This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in
all respects by the law of the State of Virginia, excluding
conflict of law provisions.
If someone in Albania, say, is violating the licence, and CNRI wants
to sue them in
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, if your printing server component is a library and is GPLed,
then every work linked to it has to be GPLed (or have an even less
restrictive license).
Also, is it relevant that at the moment the whole app. comes on a single CD?
This is
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
Isn't this a huge violation of the GPL ??
It seems to be. Their decision only to distribute to people who agree
to pay them $10 is, of course, perfectly fine, but they also say:
You may freely download and use this distribution for any purpose with
201 - 262 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
