Re: fmodapi license and non-free
Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:47:09PM +, Johey Shmit a écrit : There is a Non-Commercial License which to me sounds like it's ok for 'non-free'. It can be found at http://www.fmod.org/index.php/sales and reads: […] Can anyone confirm if that's ok for 'non-free'? Dear Johey, this license does not allow explicitely redistribution, so I think that you would need a clarification from fmod. In addition the license does not allow modification as well, so even if it were technically possible to redistribute the software in the non-free area of our archive, the package would be very difficult to maintain. So it looks like a bad start… Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110112232147.ga20...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:16:28PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:26:02 -0600 Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 04:16:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: [...] Unfortunately, there's no way that Debian can possibly comply with the compliance specification as written. [I only got as far as §2.3 to find an obvious deal-breaker.] This sounds like yet another case where an unbranded name[1] is required for actual use in the community, ala iceweasel. This situation is not analogous to the iceweasel case. For iceweasel, there was a copyright license on the graphics included in firefox that imposed trademark-like restrictions; so under the DFSG the graphics had to go, and the maintainer took the decision to also rename the package at the same time. That's not how I recall the Mozilla trademark issues. Quoting from http://lists.debian.org/debian-news/2006/msg00044.html : [...] | Firefox becomes Iceweasel. Due to trademark [47]issues the Debian | project felt impelled to rename the Firefox web browser to Iceweasel | and the Thunderbird mail client to Icedove. Roberto Sanchez | [48]explained that the new packages don't contain non-free artwork | from the [49]Mozilla Foundation and that security updates will be | properly backported. The trademark [50]policy requires that such | packages are not distributed under the original name, hence the new | names. | | 47. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00328.html | 48. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/10/msg00665.html | 49. http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ | 50. http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html [...] As far as I understand it, the issue was that the Mozilla Foundation wanted the Debian Project to distribute their products under their trademarked names, with their non-free graphical logos and only with selected patches approved by them (solution A). If these terms could not be complied with (and they were too restrictive for the Debian Project, obviously), then the graphical logos had to be removed, and the packages renamed (solution B). It's simpler than that, really. The logo was non-free, which meant we couldn't use it. So we shipped firefox without the logo. Mozilla didn't want something called firefox without the logo. End of story. The patch policy is completely orthogonal. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110112235150.ga14...@glandium.org
please advise on how to attribute correctly using CC BY-SA 3.0
Hi Legal Experts, In the realm of the mix of research and Debian activities we (NeuroDebian project) whenever applicable try to encourage researchers to share their data under some open terms. To avoid confusion, and to suggest a license which seems to be a better fit for data, we advise (and use ourselves) CC BY-SA 3.0, in particular because it was announced to be DFSG-compliant. Here follows the main question: what would be the correct composition of for the copyright/license notice to embed the desired attribution, in particular referencing a journal publication (which seems to be ok according to my treat of 4c of CC BY-SA license terms) e.g. Copyright (C) 2010, Author1, Author2 Distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Public use requires attribution of the original works published in Author1, Author2, Title of the paper, where published, 2010, URL: http:// Something like that? or am I stretching attribution idea of CC BY-SA too far? Please advise -- =--= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: please advise on how to attribute correctly using CC BY-SA 3.0
Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com writes: Hi Legal Experts, Scant few of those here. Please note that this forum is *not* primarily composed of legal experts, and you should not expect that anyone here has any particular legal qualification unless they demonstrate it. (You may already know that, but the trend of readers in the past has been to often assume that what you imply above is true.) […] we advise (and use ourselves) CC BY-SA 3.0, in particular because it was announced to be DFSG-compliant. Yes, that seems to be the opinion of the Debian ftpmasters. Here follows the main question: what would be the correct composition of for the copyright/license notice to embed the desired attribution, I would think it should be no different from the general recommendations for a good copyright notice and license grant. For example: Copyright © 2007–2011 Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au This work is free software; anyone may copy, modify, and/or redistribute it under the terms of Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 International license. No warranty expressed or implied. See the file ‘foo/bar/LICENSE.CC-BY-SA-3.0.txt’ for full terms. Note, though, that the CC Attribution clauses make provision for the copyright holder to specify whatever manner of attribution they like. As a copyright holder choosing a CC Attribution clause, it follows that you'd need to spell out for the recipient exactly how you want them to do attribution. Copyright (C) 2010, Author1, Author2 Distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ URLs can later lead to different documents than the terms intended by the copyright holder, or lead to an error page, at some arbitrary point in the future. That's a bad risk for trying to make license terms clear to every recipient. Best to include the full license terms in the work itself as an obvious text document, where feasible, and refer directly to them there instead of a URL. See my example above. Public use requires attribution of the original works published in Author1, Author2, Title of the paper, where published, 2010, URL: http:// Something like that? or am I stretching attribution idea of CC BY-SA too far? The Creative Commons wiki has a few pages explaining the Attribution clauses: URL:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Attribution URL:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users As it says there: As explained by the license deeds, to fulfill the requirements of Attribution you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, | `\Brain, but if we had a snowmobile, wouldn't it melt before | _o__) summer?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney pgphpcioKzodF.pgp Description: PGP signature
