Re: License question: GPL+Exception
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. [...] First, I think b is not an exception but a restriction. Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html That isn't much different to using the plain GPL with an OpenSSL-like licence - both licences are DFSG-free, but we can't satisy both of them simultaneously without additional permission on the GPL side. Of course a copyright holder of the entire work could still copy and distribute and so on because they don't need a licence but we can't because we can't satisfy both of those restrictions simultaneously. The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#383316: Derivative works for songs
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:06:01 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] There's another issue with the remaining four songs, though. Is their source available? I mean: what's the preferred form[1] for making modifications to the songs? Is this form available? I hope that the scores are available, or a track-by-track recording, to avoid any build-depends on Sony ACID Pro 5 in a really clear way. Mmmh: I don't think it's included in the zip archived previously referenced. Each song consists of the following files: $ file * guitar.ogg: Ogg data, Vorbis audio, stereo, 44100 Hz, ~256006 bps, created by: Xiph.Org libVorbis I (1.0) License.txt: ASCII English text, with CRLF line terminators notes.mid: Standard MIDI data (format 1) using 2 tracks at 1/96 song.ini:ASCII text, with CRLF line terminators song.ogg:Ogg data, Vorbis audio, stereo, 44100 Hz, ~256006 bps, created by: Xiph.Org libVorbis I (1.0) However, for debian compilation of the game, isn't the preferred source form the mixed recording? The one used in the build? We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp6yDcQ88Uqi.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Bug#383316: Derivative works for songs
--- Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... I think that's quite complex to decide on a single-game basis, as that decision might affect most of other games, as well as synthetic videos, music all around the archive and most of media files in fact. I'm n ot really sure if the repositories are prepared to handle sucha a big amount of data, i guess we should contact the release team to check. At some point I guess we should need to reach a decision about this, which will probably involve massive bug-filling if we decide .mpg, .avi, .mp3, .ogg files and so do not qualify enough as modifiable files, but for the moment I'd prefer to stick with the currently usual way of allowing mp3 files in the archive for this game (license allowing modification and redistribution, of course), unless there is a big oposition to that. If not, it's time to start a big debate about what is considered source form in art (which, in fact, I think it'll be quite an interesting topic). Greetings, Miry PS: I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, so please include me in CC in your replies. LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. [...] First, I think b is not an exception but a restriction. Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html I think you're wrong here ... (certainly if the entire grant is by a single entity) That isn't much different to using the plain GPL with an OpenSSL-like licence - both licences are DFSG-free, but we can't satisy both of them simultaneously without additional permission on the GPL side. Of course a copyright holder of the entire work could still copy and distribute and so on because they don't need a licence but we can't because we can't satisfy both of those restrictions simultaneously. The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. As, presumably, they do. Hence GPL plus restrictions. I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not GPL, but GPL plus restrictions. The result can't be invalid, because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to what is granted. A GPL plus restrictions is only invalid when the GPL is granted by one entity, and the restrictions imposed by a different one. I can't licence my code as plus restrictions and mix it with pure GPL code by someone else. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:04:09 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes [...] The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. As, presumably, they do. Hence GPL plus restrictions. If it's a license derived from the GNU GPL, it cannot refer to the GPL terms, but must copy and modify them instead. And it cannot be named GPL or mention GNU. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL It's not what has been done by Red Hat. They licensed their work under the GNU GPL v2 + additional restrictions. This is different from licensing under a FooBar license derived from the GNU GPL v2. I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not GPL, but GPL plus restrictions. That is the problem! The result can't be invalid, because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to what is granted. It's not clear at all, because it is self-contradictory. In section 6 of the GNU GPL v2, it's clearly stated that no further restrictions *beyond the ones found in the GPL terms* can be imposed. But such restrictions are imposed, at the same time. A GPL plus restrictions is only invalid when the GPL is granted by one entity, and the restrictions imposed by a different one. That case is not a invalid license, it's a copyright violation, which is a different beast! -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpDZDqvdclXU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#383316: Derivative works for songs
On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:11:32 +0200 (CEST) Miriam Ruiz wrote: --- Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... I think that's quite complex to decide on a single-game basis, as that decision might affect most of other games, as well as synthetic videos, music all around the archive and most of media files in fact. It *must* be decided on a case-by-case basis: no general rule can be drawn from a specific decision, because what is source in one case, can be compiled form in another. This holds even for programs, not only for audio, video and similar stuff. Imagine we decided that C code is always source: that would be a wrong oversimplification, because there are quite some cases where C code is generated from some other form (typical examples: parser code generated from a grammar description by Bison, or C code automatically translated from a higher level language). Hence, each case has to be examined to determine which is the source. [...] At some point I guess we should need to reach a decision about this, which will probably involve massive bug-filling if we decide .mpg, .avi, .mp3, .ogg files and so do not qualify enough as modifiable files, As I said, we cannot reach any reasonable *general* conclusion about a format. In some cases an Ogg Vorbis file qualifies as source, because maybe it's the preferred form for making modification to a work. In other cases, an Ogg Vorbis file does not qualify. [...] If not, it's time to start a big debate about what is considered source form in art (which, in fact, I think it'll be quite an interesting topic). Art does not need any special-casing (and anyway the boundaries of art are quite blurred: some programs can be so elegant to be considered art...). Source code is defined as the form of a work which is preferred for making modifications to it. Greetings, Miry PS: I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, so please include me in CC in your replies. P.S.: I am instead subscribed to debian-legal, so please do *not* Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop! -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpZBqHrsaxDc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html I think you're wrong here ... (certainly if the entire grant is by a single entity) By invalid, I take MJ Ray's meaning as not a usable license for recipients of the work. Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not GPL, but GPL plus restrictions. The result can't be invalid, because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to what is granted. The result can be a license with contraditory terms, as in this case (GPL requires no additional restrictions; yet additional restrictions are required). Since the terms are contradictory, the recipient cannot simultaneously satisfy all the terms of the license; thus the recipient has no valid license in the work. -- \ All good things are cheap; all bad are very dear. -- Henry | `\ David Thoreau | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
