Re: Drawings similar to well known products. Copyright problems?
[I'll not Cc: you Aurelian, as I assume you'll get this from the BTS anyway. Others: If you stop Cc:'ing the bug, you'll probably need to Cc: the maintainer.] On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Aurelien Jarno wrote: I recently package and uploaded openclipart [1], an open clipart library. The package has just been accepted by the ftpmasters and is now in Debian. I just received a bug report (#289764) from William Ballard about problematic copyrighted pictures, that looks like similar to some well known company products. First and foremost, there's a serious conflation of copyrights and trademarks here. Almost none of these images appear to actually be affected by whomever William claims to own the copyright, unless they are actually derivative works of something that is copyrighted.[1] However, it's quite possible that they are representations of trademarks, and as such protected wherever such a company has trademarks. [I don't deign to know who actually controlls these trademarks, or even if they are really trademarked.] Yet, even if that's the case, I don't see that there's a point to removing these works until we get cease and desist letters from the people who own the trademark. If that happens, the maintainer(s) of this package will have to act quickly to remove the works in question, even if they are in stable... but I'll be really surprised if they ever actually care. Just for the record, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Don Armstrong 1: I think the phone image is about the closest one to being a derivative work of a copyrighted work... but if I'll believe it if the artist says that it just drawn based on an idea of what a cell phone looks like. -- 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: how to mention GPL in the debian/copyright file
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote: I have a question about how to write the debian/copyright file for packages which are distributed under the GPL. Currently the debian/copyright file of chbg contains the paragraph Chbg is copyrigthed by Ondrejicka Stefan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). It is license under the GPL. On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in the /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL file. Unfortunatly, this is incorrect. The code is licensed under GPL 2 or later. (See below where I discuss the issues with this.) [SNIP] My questions: 1) Is it required to include the above three paragraphs into the debian/copyright file? The debian/copyright file must include the upstream's copyright statement. This typically includes the three paragraphs listed above. In your case, it looks like the copyright statement is just the following: /***/ /* This code is part of Desktop Background changer*/ /* called ChBg*/ /* Copyright (c) 1999,2000 Ondrejicka Stefan */ /* ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) */ /* Distributed under GPL 2 or later */ /***/ However, I strongly suggest that you talk to upstream, and have upstream use the form of copyright statement and licensing statement mentioned in the GNU GPL itself, namely: one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. Copyright (C) 19yy name of author 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 of the License, 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, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. 2) In case it is not required, is it for some other reason preferable to include them? It is preferable to include them from the upstream maintainer's point of view, because it makes it explicit what license the work is released under. In the case of this work, it's very difficult to accertain what license the images are released under, as there is no LICENSE or similar file that contains a copyright statement and license statement covering the entire archive. While this may seem a bit overdone, it's really in the best interest of the upstream maintainer to follow the instructions of the GNU GPL when upstream places code under the GPL. Don Armstrong -- There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to mention GPL in the debian/copyright file
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Recently Justin Pryzby filed bug #290087 against chbg, claiming that the debian/copyright file should instead contain the 3 paragraphs as found in /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/native/copyright, which turn out to be [snip standard GPL blob] 1) Is it required to include the above three paragraphs into the debian/copyright file? What you should include is the exact notice found in the upstream source which says that the program is covered by the GPL. As far as I can see from a random sample (src/fnmatch.c) from the source package, this notice happens to be identical to the blurb you quoted from debhelper, but if it had been different, you should add the notice actually found in the upstream source. I actually missed this particular one... fnmatch.c is not copyrighted by Stefan Ondrejicka either. Nor is gtkclrbutton.c. The copyright file needs to include the copyright statements for the different works that have been included in chbg, since there are at least 5 copyright holders that I've identified so far. (FSF, Stefan, Peter, Spencer, and Josh.) [I'm ignoring the auto* stuff, but since that's owned by the FSF as well, you're probably ok.] Don Armstrong -- If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway. -- Lowery's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need to Identify Contributions and the Dissident Test
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified sources is granted, provided you 1. distribute the corresponding source modifications from the released version in the form of a patch file along with the binaries, 2. add special version identification to distinguish your version in addition to the base release version number, 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the support of your modified version, and 4. retain our contact information in regard to use of the base software. (3) seems to fail the Dissident test. This particular extension of the dissident test has always bothered me, which is one reason why I've never applied it in my own arguments of why a license is Free or not free. 1) Some sort of identification of the author of the work is required in order to allow people to exercise their DFSG guaranteed freedoms upon a work. If we did not have some sort of identification of the copyright holder of the work, the work is (probably) not properly licensed, and thus we cannot make use of it at all. This seems to break most copyleft schemes.[1] 2) The purpose (as I understand it) of the dissident test is to point out licenses which require disclosure of information to inviduals to whom the software has not actually been distributed. Because the above license actually doesn't require this, it doesn't seem to fall afoul of the narrow dissident test. (Or, the desert island test.) 3) GNU GPL 2a) obstensibly requires this very same thing:[2] You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Finally, I really haven't thought much about the implicit support requirement that (3) brings out. All I can say is that I really wish upstream authors would stay away from the desire to write their own licenses. Don Armstrong 1: Some will probably argue that this is analogous to the GNU GPL's ASP loophole. 2: Others will probably argue that it doesn't, since 'stating that you changed the files' doesn't necessarily mean that you actually have to give your name. -- 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need to Identify Contributions and the Dissident Test
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:09:03PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: 1) Some sort of identification of the author of the work is required in order to allow people to exercise their DFSG guaranteed freedoms upon a work. If we did not have some sort of identification of the copyright holder of the work, the work is (probably) not properly licensed, and thus we cannot make use of it at all. This seems to break most copyleft schemes.[1] Copyright notices can use aliases, right? I don't know anything about how enforcable that renders that person's copyright claim, but I don't think it renders the license invalid. At least in the US, the copyright would still be enforceable if they actually wrote the software, since a copyright notice is no longer required. (Well, ignoring the effect upon statutory damages.) However, an improper copyright + licensing notice could make the license itself invalid (or at least questionable) since it wouldn't be a clear statement from the copyright holder that they licensed a work appropriately. 2) The purpose (as I understand it) of the dissident test is to point out licenses which require disclosure of information to inviduals to whom the software has not actually been distributed. I believe don't make me identify myself is part of the dissident test: a dissident identifying himself as the author of something can put him in personal danger; he should be able to modify and use the software without violating the license (eg. so, once he moves to Canada and identifies himself as the author of those changes, he doesn't find himself being sued for copyright violation). Absolutely. In this case, the author doesn't have to disclose information to anyone to whom the software hasn't been distributed. If you don't distribute the software, no one should need to know that you've modified it. However, when you actually distribute the modifications that you've made, some sort of disclosure seems necessary so that other people can build upon your modifications. If this disclosure isn't provided, you've effectively restricted people from using your modifications at all, even though that seems central to the Free Software community. The situation that keeps appearing to me is the following: I release a Free work. Someone else comes along, takes the work, makes useful modifications to it, and sells it to companies and distributes it to the world at large. However, they fail to identify themselves. Thus, I have no way of knowing who actually wrote the improvements to the work or finding out if the copyright behind them is actually sound. In fact, for all anyone knows, the someone else could have been a person working while legally contracted to a company, and all of that work, even though released under a pseudonym, is owned by the contracting company. In this way, all of the improvements made to the software are unavailable to the Free Software community because no one can either sue the copyright holder of the improvements to cause them to comply with the GPL, or worse, incorporate the improvements back into the work. 3) GNU GPL 2a) obstensibly requires this very same thing:[2] You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. 2: Others will probably argue that it doesn't, since 'stating that you changed the files' doesn't necessarily mean that you actually have to give your name. I don't think there's any debate here. You don't have to give your name. I've never seen a serious argument to the contrary. This is somewhat of an open question, especially as the typical way to satisfy this clause means identifying the source of the changes. At least, that's how I read it. Don Armstrong -- Clint why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common? infinity It... Doesn't? Clint good point http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#292260: Should be moved from non-free to main
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote: Many packages in the past have been accepted in main with updated licensing terms even if their last formal release contained a different and non-free license. To my understanding, at least, the licenses for these packages involved direct communication between the upstream author and the maintainer via e-mail or similar. It's probably best to e-mail the upstream author, get clarification, and include the whole e-mail in the debian/copyright. That's substantially more reliable than a random announcement on a webpage. 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: anonymity and copyright in the U.S. (was: Need to Identify Contributions and the Dissident Test)
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Branden Robinson wrote: As should be well-known, Stephen King is a money machine. I find it hard to believe he'd have published under a pen name if to do so would have meant exposing himself to claims of fraudulent copyright. Definetly. Just to clarify, in case it was still unclear, my primary concern isn't with the rights of the copyright holder being preserved (they are preserved regardless) but with the ability of people to make derived works from such a work, and whether or not anonymous copyright holders with (questionable?) licensing agreements curtails the distribution of derivative works. Don Armstrong -- This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related program activities, and the letter G. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Authority and procedures of debian-legal
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005, Glenn L McGrath wrote: For debian-legal to abide by Debians Social Contract, i think someone should be attempting to exhaustively list non-free restrictions. This would involve the formation of a definition, instead of a set of guidelines. I think a vote should be required, and the DFSG changed before debian-legal assumes the right to impose any new restrictions. debian-legal isn't the group that imposes restrictions. Its entire purpose is to assist the ftpmasters and maintainers in determining whether a piece of software is Free under the DFSG, to help maintainers communicate with their upstream to get software released under a Free license, and to discuss other legal issues affecting Debian. That being said, you're still looking at this from the wrong angle. We're here[1] to preserve our freedom to modify and distribute modified software, not to sacrifice useful freedoms to include anything in Debian. While we should tie everything we can back to specific clauses and interpretations of the DFSG, there's no reason to allow software that is clearly non-free into Debian simply because it artfully avoids the letter of the DFSG. Don Armstrong 1: I hope that's why you all are here anyway... as it's one of the reasons I am. -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Andreas Barth wrote: * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]: On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it actually makes sense, but so far it looks fine to me. As it is, I don't see any difference between this and any other vendor not releasing hardware specs and yet a Free driver exists. Not a good thing, but not non-free either. Well put. I think it is arguably not source code, however, if the source we are seeing is the result of some sed-like script which converts a sort of custom #defined MAGIC_NUMBERs to id numbers, and then removes the #definitions. Is there some proof that the files are created that way, or is this just your assumptation? It's not either. It's a hypothetical. That is, if, hypothetically, the source provided is the result of a obfuscation regex, then it's not source. [IE, we aren't provided the real prefered form for modification.] Don Armstrong -- Grimble left his mother in the food store and went to the launderette and watched the clothes go round. It was a bit like colour television only with less plot. -- Clement Freud _Grimble_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
While my views on this are well known, I'll rehash them again just for my own vanity. On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: While the GPL defines source as the prefered form for modification, that definition doesn't exist in the DFSG. There are a lot of things that the DFSG does not define, but we still deal with it as best we can. There's no reason to believe that we need the preferred form for modification, merely an acceptable form for modification. Otherwise we run into all sorts of issues with JPEGs and suchlike... What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to modify the JPEG. In some cases, this will just be a JPEG. In others, it will be an XCF, SVG or something else entirely. While there may be a better definition of source code than the prefered form for modification, I haven't seen it yet. Don Armstrong -- Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't bet, you can't win. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p240 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that the photograph is the source. Quite possibly not, actually. Consider a 2 layer PCB, FE. A 20 megabyte binary-only application is non-free, even if the author wrote and maintains it in a hex-editor. The author's preferred form for modification is a good metric, but not the be-all and end-all of whether a work provides sufficient freedom. Why not? Why must a work be in a form that you prefer when the author finds it ideal for their work? What makes your prefered form of modification special over the author's? The whole point of requiring sourcecode, as I see it, is so that users (and Debian) have the same form that the author uses to modify the code, so we're capable of making the same kind of modifications as the author. Granted, I personally wouldn't package a work that was maintained in a binary only form using a hex-editor for Debian, if for no other reason than the fact that *I* can't modify the thing or audit it to satisfy a reasonable level of quality. But that's not to say that Gods or Goddesses of machine code can't package the thing. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.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: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: I don't think /my/ preferred form of modification is more special than the author's, but if nobody but the author is in a reasonable position to alter the code then I don't think that's free. If this is because the author is withholding information, then I agree... but if it's just because no one else can think in machine code, than I disagree. Free software is supposed to give us independence from the author - that's not possible if the work is effectively unmodifiable by anyone else. If I could find some way of specifying this without going the road of the GFDL, where it unecessarily restricts the license to very specific forms of sourcecode, I would consider it. However, the attempts that I've seen always seem to outlaw rather useful applications that the GPL's definition appears to allow. Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole point of requiring sourcecode, as I see it, is so that users (and Debian) have the same form that the author uses to modify the code, so we're capable of making the same kind of modifications as the author. I'd disagree - I think we want sourcecode because we want to be able to modify the work. That's subtly different to what you're suggesting, and there are works that could fall in one and not the other. From the point of view of modifiability, I don't think the author should be considered special. But who gets to decide? To someone who thinks in machinecode, perl[1] may be just as difficult to modify as machinecode is for me. I can modify the code, and anyone possessing the skillset that I have can modify the code. There's nothing I possess that can possibly be distributed that would help them modify the software that they don't have. As I said before, I think I have a fundamentally different take on why we want source code to the general view here. Yeah, I think we both agree on the main point of why we want sourcecode, we just differ on whether or not we will let the author use things that a normal person[2] wouldn't be capable of modifing that the author (and those with an equivalent skillset) would be. Frankly, there really shouldn't be any works that fall into this narrow region[3] being distributed in Debian anyway, on the purely technical grounds that the maintainer isn't capable of maintaining the code. Don Armstrong 1: To pick my favorite, but much maligned, language 2: Whatever that means 3: Oh yes, firmware. (Rhetorical) Why are we distributing code that we can't maintain? -- 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: GPL for documentation ?
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Gervase Markham wrote: Daniel Carrera wrote: I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation: 1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something that is not software? With difficulty, IMO. Although, as someone points out, the GPL only uses the word software a few times, it is assumed throughout. For example, what do you do with a dictionary under the GPL and a word processor? Is it just data used by the program, or is it a part of it? It's really hard to figure it out, and creates uncertainty. What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole. If you're talking about source code, the prefered form for modification applies equally well to documentation as it does to programmatic works. If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to the work. Please don't use the GPL for documentation; it wasn't designed for it. Ideally, you'd use a DFSG-free documentation-specific licence, but I seem to remember there isn't one of those. ICBW, of course. It may not have been designed specifically for it, but there are few specific problems that have been pointed out with using the GPL for documentation that cannot be trivially overcome. Also, if you must discourage people from using a license, please point out specific problems with the license that preclude its application to a specific class of work. Otherwise we devolve into discussing generalities and the ever present FUD. Don Armstrong -- THERE IS NO GRAVITY THE WORLD SUCKS -- Vietnam War Penquin Lighter http://gallery.donarmstrong.com/clippings/vietnam_there_is_no_gravity.jpg http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: When should -legal contact maintainers [Was: Re: Question for candidate Robinson]
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:23:26AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: If -legal is specifically discussing a license of a package, the maintainer is generally informed[1] it was not in this case, since the first mention i had was that consensus was reached and my package should move to non-free. In this particular case, the package and license combination that brought up the QPL was libcwd (#251983).[1] To be honest, no one seems to have equated the libcwd discussion about QPL being non-free with the ocaml discussion about the QPL being GPL incompatible until Brian Sniffen brought it up,[2] and since you're in the Maintainer: field on ocaml, you were notified. [This isn't particularly surprising as it's almost impossible to figure out what licenses packages are under in Debian in an automated fashion.] In the latter stages of the discussion, if there really are issues with a license that packages in Debian are using, bugs are typically opened against the packages, ideally with a short summary of the specific issues that the license has, and suggestions for what the maintainer can do to fix the license. (And quite often offers of help in explaining the problems to upstream as well.) And in this case, suggestion was ask upstream to GPL his software or dual licence, as trolltech did for Qt. not even bothering to examine the package in questionand noticing that none of the QPLed part of the package was indeed a library, and thus had no GPL-interaction problems. Dual licensing under the QPL and GPL (or as actually suggested, QPL + LGPL[3]) would have solved both the DFSG freedom issues with the QPL, and the ocaml emacs binding issues of #227159. It may not be the optimal solution for ocaml, but it would have solved the immediate problems. Surely no maintainer expects to be notified every time someone asks on -user, -devel (or $DEITY forbid, IRC[3]) whether specific behavior from a package constitutes a bug. no, but maintainers get over-angry when people modify the seveirty of one of their bugs they have been ignoring for age, no ? I'd hope that maintainers wouldn't get angry,[4] and instead be willing to help discuss the issues (or lack thereof) that make the changed serverity of the bug reasonable or unreasonable. After all, it's not like we're making up these issues purely to spite maintainers. In most cases, reasonable people have examined the issues, discussed them, and felt there was enough of a problem to warrant bothering a package maintainer about it. After all, things change, and a bug that was normal severity today may end up being RC tomorrow. And this reaction seems to be backed up by the powers that are, and a real analogy to the please ask upstream to GPL his software or we will recomend ftp-masters to remove it from main kind of request. I'm afraid I cannot parse what you're trying to say here. Don Armstrong 1: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040709.215918.1224a82f.en.html 2: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227159msg=65 3: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227159msg=41 4: But then, bts ping-pong doesn't happen because maintainers are always calm... -- 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]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Daniel Carrera wrote: This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of any part receiving it. s/part/party/ [possibly consider just using 'at your option' or whatever the precise language is from the GNU GPL recommended copyright statement.] Don Armstrong -- [Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it Operation Just Cause.] I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be Operation Just 'Cause? -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669cid=5664907 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux and GPLv2
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could you please elaborate on the PHP loophole? I've never heard of it: what do you mean by that? It's the whole web-as-platform idea. This is commonly refered to as the ASP[1] loophole not the PHP loophole for the obvious reasons that the former describes the actual problem, whereas the latter is just a language that isn't restricted to usage by ASPs. Search for affero and asp loophole from somewhere around 2003 on -legal if you want more information on why closing this loophole is probably not possible to do in a free manner. Don Armstrong 1: Where ASP is application service provider. -- The solution to a problem changes the problem. -- Peer's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Denied vote and the definition of a DD
First and formost, this discussion doesn't belong on -legal at all, as -legal isn't the body responsible for interpreting the constitution. That's the Secretary's job under 7.1.3. Forwarding to -vote as that (or possibly -project) is the correct list. On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Taral wrote: Quoted with permission: On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:17:36AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:50:47 -0600, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:15:41PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Can I send in my vote by mail? If not, what alternate mechanism exists? If none, please make one. I don't want to be left out of the voting because of someone else's inaction. I'm sorry, but I don't think I can just make up rules. You need to be a DD in good standing in order to vote, and that essentially means having a key in the keyring. Questions to consider: 1. Whence does the requirement for signed votes come from? Via 7.1.1 and A.6.1 2. Who is empowered to change the policy surrounding the voting system? If the change requires a change to the constitution, the Developers are by an appropriate GR. Otherwise, the Secretary sets the policy. 3. By what authority can the Secretary reject an authenticatable vote provided by alternate means? (e.g. notarized document by certified mail) By 7.1.1 and A.6.1 again. 4. What defines who is and is not a Debian Developer? Having control of a valid key in the keyring is pretty much the de facto definition of a Debian Developer. 5. How do I fix my current problem? From /usr/share/doc/debian-keyring/README.gz Getting your key into the debian keyring If you are an old debian developer who hasn't uploaded your packages for a long time, and your key is not in the keyring, send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] explaining the situation, and including your public PGP key. All new maintainers should apply at http://nm.debian.org/, and your key(s) will be added to the keyring as part of the admission process. Don Armstrong -- The solution to a problem changes the problem. -- Peer's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Linux and GPLv2
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005, Måns Rullgård wrote: You are obviously convinced that using a command line interface can't be protected by copyright. Why, then, are you so persistent in insisting that other interfaces somehow are awarded such protection? Whether or not a specific interface is covered by copyright is necessarily jurisdictionally dependent. A conservative tack is to assume that if there's any creative component at all, then there is a possibility of copyright. [Even that may not go far enough, as some things that are devoid of creativity may have the protection of copyright in specific localities, cf. the database directive.] If you wish to say that there is no copyright protection for a specific instance in a specific jurisdiction, that may indeed be the case,[1] but it's quite irresponsible to claim that it is so for all jurisdictions. Don Armstrong 1: If it is so, I'd strongly suggest finding relevant case law or talking to a lawyer before using this to take actions which would be infringing if a copyright actually did exist. -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Debian export question: JAPAN and the world
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005, Satoshi Kawase (Fukuoka) wrote: I work for a major Japanese electronics company and we would like include Debian into one of our new products. Excellent. While I've found lots of information regarding how to export Debian outside the U.S. ( http://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain is excellent) I have found little information on how to export Debian from Japan or for that matter other countries. Yes, this is basically because Debian has never really had to deal with this problem, since it's currently[1] much easier to just export from the US machines themselves, and handle country specific regulations in country. Unfortunatly, to really answer these questions appropriately, you're going to need to retain legal advice of someone intimately familiar with Japanese export controls and see what needs to be done.[2] As few of us are lawyers, let alone lawyers in Japan who are expert in export controls, we can't really give you any real legal advice. If retaining an attorney for a few hours poses a problem to help draft whatever semi-automated compliance documentation is needed, you may be able to work around the export restrictions[3] by allowing customers to download the cryptographic software directly from Debian's mirrors. Don Armstrong 1: Before crypto-in-main we did this by exporting from a country without these pesky laws. 2: You may want to use the current techique for dealing with the US export laws as a starting point in your discussions with your attorney. 3: Assuming you don't actually need any cryptographic packages installed to get your product in a distributable state. -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
[MFT set to -legal, as this is becoming legal arcana probably not particularly interesting to any other list.] On Tue, 05 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote: There are two solutions to this issue, either you abide by the GPL and provide also the source code of those firmware binaries (the prefered solution :), or you modify the copyright statement of these files, to indicate that even thought the file per se is under the GPL, the firmware binary code is not, and give us a licence to distribute it. Something akin to : /* This program, except the firmware binary code, 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, located in the file */ /* LICENSE. */ /* Distribution, either as is or modified syntactically to adapt to the */ /* layout of the surrounding GPLed code is allowed, provided this copyright */ /* notice is acompanying it */ Just a word of warning: The wording above fails to make it clear what the second clause is applying to. Additionally it has the following restrictions that are probably not intended: 1) Does not specifically allow this firware to be sold as part of an aggregate 2) The range of modifications allowed is rather vague, and implies that the firmware can't be extracted I'd instead suggest applying a pre-existing license like MIT[1] to the firmware portion of the code file, rather than inventing your own licensing text that only partially deals with the problem(s) at issue. (Inventing licensing text is quite often very hazardous to your health.) Don Armstrong 1: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php -- 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug#304316: section non-free/doc]
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Olleg Samoylov wrote: License of documents in gnu-standards restrict modification documents. And reason easily undestanded, standard can't be called standard if can be modified by everyone. That's why it's sensible to have a standard signed with a known PGP key so the veracity of the standard can be verified by anyone. The use of licensing mechanisms to do this isn't necessary when there are perfectly valid technical mechanisms to do it. [Furthermore, it's not like anyone who would maliciously modify a standards document would be stopped by copyright...] IMHO incorrect implement DFSG to any documentation due to DFSG is Debian Free _Software_ Guidelines and designed especially for software. However restriction of modification documents correlate with Integrity of The Author's Source Code in DFSG. [snip] Can you resolve such weakness and add Debian Free Document Guidelines to Debian Policy? This has already been discussed ad naseam. Please read through the list archives regarding documentation as software in -legal. (Hint: there are thousands of messages on this very subject itself.) To briefly sumarize[1] the issues facing separating documentation and software: 1) No one has been able to definitively disambiguate software and documentation.[2] 2) No one has put forward a set of freedoms that documentation needs to preserve. 3) No one has set forth a rationale of why some freedoms which we find necessary for software are not necessary for the documentation for that software. Feel free to work at resolving these questions if you have decided that documentation[3] needs fundamentally different freedoms than software. Don Armstrong 1: Inasmuch as I can summarize, since I have rather well known views on this subject, and am not an impartial observer. 2: The only real definition I'm aware of has been very much akin to the USSC definition of pornography: I know it when I see it. 3: Whatever that is. -- 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free
[MFT: set to -legal again, since once more, this really has nothing to do with -devel.] On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, John Hasler wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a piece of software. That has nothing to do with creating a derivative of a license for use elsewhere. Sure, but then we would be distributing the license as a work in its own right, which is not (in general) what we are doing. To amplify this point, any licenses present in Debian that are not directly referenced by the copyright statement of a work distributed in Debian should be DFSG Free. [I'd argue additionally that these random licenses have no business being distributed in Debian at all, even if they were DFSG Free, but that's a separate matter.] Don Armstrong -- Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going If in their place we find a thing more precious growing A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing -- Frederick Rkert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For thoughts: fair license
On Wed, 04 May 2005, James William Pye wrote: [Sent to license-discuss as another letter, and please CC me.] It's longer, but, all in all, I think it makes it a better license: In the future, set Mail-Followup-To: to advertise this fact. (Set) The exercise and enjoyment of the rights granted by authorship Exercise and enjoyment by whom, exactly? is authorized provided that this instrument is retained with substantial portions of the works in a good faith effort to notify any entity that uses the works of this instrument. DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY. This warranty disclaimer is probably not sufficient. The purpose of the license is to create a concise gift license. It contrasts from BSD and MIT and most other gift licenses by being open-ended, rather than closed. That difference being that BSD and MIT specifically state the exercisable rights, whereas this license authorizes all the rights granted by authorship(all inclusive). However, those licenses are quite well understood, whereas this license is, frankly, quite confusing as to the actual extent of rights that are granted. I'm really not sure what this license actually improves though, since the MIT license specifically grants any privilege that can be excercised by those who are not actually the author. [And, at least in my opinion, license proliferation is something that should be avoided at all costs.] Don Armstrong -- Q: What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years? A: Nothing. -- Bokonon _The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon_ (Vonnegut _Cats Cradle_) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keeping debate in its place so we can actually reach resolution [Was: Re: ]
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are choosing to post on three different forums. Having made that choice, it is your obligation to make your comments relevant to them all; you cannot post on debian-devel, and then insist that your interlocutors there read a different list. Oh, nuts. I didn't realize this thread was still copied to hell and gone. I'll try to summarize briefly, and would the next person please cut d-d and waste-public off if appropriate? Can we please try to hold most of these discussions primarily in -legal? Once we have actually figured out what the primary issue is, and understood the ramifications of it, only then should we present a cogent, clear analysis of what the actual issue is to upstream, so that they can actually deal with it appropriately. Otherwise, all we're doing is burying upstream (and frankly, -devel) under a deluge of material that they could care less about, and hurting our chances of eventually resolving the issue (whatever it is) appropriately. [Finally, as a major nitpick: Please, please, please, Set a useful Topic:. Otherwise it becomes quite impossible to return to these threads at any point in the future. Topicless threads are almost as bad as threads with a wrong topic.] Don Armstrong -- 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: Keeping debate in its place so we can actually reach resolution [Was: Re: ]
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 5/20/05, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we please try to hold most of these discussions primarily in -legal? I agree entirely. Please review the thread's history The thread's history just shows where the mistakes were introduced, but the perpetuation of them is primarily the fault of the author of every subsequent message.[1] Everyone who replies to a thread needs to be aware of who they're sending the message out to, and whether the content of the message really is going to serve the goal which we (hopefully all) share, resolving the issue(s) in a manner which allows the software to be included in Debian in compliance with the DFSG. [Please, please, please, Set a useful Topic:.] Er, talk to TB, who doesn't seem to read d-l. I'm just talking in general here.[2] Don Armstrong 1: And I've made more of my fair share of mistakes in perpetuating pointlessly crossposted threads that just end up confusing hapless upstreams... *cough* *cough* *mplayer*... 2: The recent influx of thread breaking messages[3] which have made it almost impossible to follow threads has made me even less tolerant of messages that break threads and lack subjects... if the discussion is made that difficult to follow, no one will follow it, and the participants may as well just be responding privately, because no one else but the participants in the thread will bother to read it. 3: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0+ (Windows/20050224) and Internet Mail Service need to be taken out and shot. -- 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: License question about regexplorer
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues. Have you had a chance to outline this panel discussion in slightly more detail yet? [also, do you know why it doesn't appear here: http://comas.linux-aktivaattori.org/debconf5/general/proposals ?] Don Armstrong -- There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: broadcom proposed firmware licence, please comment ...
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote: + * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware data + * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice is + * accompanying it. Just a minor question here: Would we actually be distributing the hexadecimal format, or would we be distributing the packed binary[1] representation of the hexadecimal format? While it's probably ok the way it is written, if they're going to go through the trouble of drafting a change, they should make it clear that it's also ok to distribute the firmware data in the packed binary form, assuming that's actually what will be distributed. Don Armstrong 1: By this, I mean hexadecimal: Ox39,0x37 - packed binary: '97' -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.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: broadcom proposed firmware licence, please comment ...
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:53:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote: + * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware data + * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice is + * accompanying it. Would we actually be distributing the hexadecimal format, or would we be distributing the packed binary[1] representation of the hexadecimal format? I guess that if there is a 1-1 mapping between the two representations, then it falls under the equivalent format thingy. Probably, but it has the quite real tendency to become a lawyer bomb... a simple clarification from them should be good enough. While it's probably ok the way it is written, if they're going to go through the trouble of drafting a change, they should make it clear that it's also ok to distribute the firmware data in the packed binary form, assuming that's actually what will be distributed. What good is this packed binary for ? Also, the way we are going to distribute it apart from under hexadecimal format, is by distributing the compiled binary driver, which is not clear in the above maybe ? Well, presumably that's what the driver is actually going to be uploading to the device, not doing the transformation from a hexadecimal character array to binary, then uploading it. Furthermore, if it eventually is decided that the driver+firmware compiled module is a derivative work of the driver, then we may need to separate out the firmware completely. Ideally the license would clearly allow this. [To briefly address the listing of acceptable forms issue here; I agree that that's the wrong thing to do. The ideal situtation would be to allow distribution of any transformation of the format... (or if necessary, any reversible transformation...)] 2) distribution as part of a binary module, without necessarily any copyright notice attached, which would be a pain. Since the GPL gives access to the source of the driver when the binary module is available, it also gives access by transition to the copyright notice in question under 1). If the GPL compells you to provide the copyright notice under 1), then it compells you to provide the source to this binary snippet. [You can't have it doing one without it also doing the other.] Don Armstrong -- Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going If in their place we find a thing more precious growing A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing -- Frederick R_Wisdom of the Brahmans_ [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
First of, please use your real name when discussing things upon this list. Anonymity makes it rather difficult for others to follow your arguments, and interferes with the primary mission of debian-legal. On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Anonymous wrote: I have seen quite a few people who want to licence their software as though it is in the public domain. they are often told to go with a bsd or x11 licence. They usually say they don't even whant the restrition of forcing people to include the notice. The MIT license is a fairly standard way to license things in a manner as close to the public domain in countries that do not have a concept of public domain. [It's not particularly new.] The licence I propose consists of the MIT licence below, excluding the part in the quare brackets. [, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software]. The part above is almost a no-op, and a good idea regardless, because it informs recipients of the work what their rights are, and enables them to sanely to exercise the granted rights upon the work. Don Armstrong -- People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide. -- John Brown, DEA Chief 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 'Public Domain' Licence
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:53:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software]. The part above is almost a no-op, and a good idea regardless, because it informs recipients of the work what their rights are, and enables them to sanely to exercise the granted rights upon the work. telling me that I can freely distribute the part that is Lua has no value, since I can't actually do so (it's tucked away inside a binary; if I want Lua, I'll go download the source). The value it has is informing you that some part of that codebase is Lua and that you can go download the source to Lua to get at that part of the codebase... or, you can reverse engineer that portion of the code to get back at Lua... or exercise any other right (useful or not) that the MIT license gives you. [Most of this issue here is just a straight forward problem with non-copyleft licenses...] Also, due to license proliferation, different MIT-ish projects are actually under a collection of slightly varying permissive licenses, Yeah, the rest of this is really a problem with license promulgation, which is something that modifying the MIT isn't going to help with at all. Don Armstrong -- The solution to a problem changes the problem. -- Peer's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: quake2 and german youth protection law
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Baltasar Cevc wrote: 6 für ihre Altersstufe freigegeben und gekennzeichnet worden sind oder wenn es sich um Informations-, Instruktions- und Lehrprogramme handelt, die vom Anbieter mit ???Infoprogramm??? oder ???Lehrprogramm??? gekennzeichnet sind. A quick (but quite imperfect) translation: if they are informational, instructional or learning software which have been declared as informational program or learning program by the provider. Oh, brilliant. I hereby declare these programs to be Infopgrogram as well as Lehrpgoramm. Seems to satisfy this paragraph completely. Next? Don Armstrong -- This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure. -- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Trademark question
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, nodata wrote: http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=1011207 The only registered trademark they have on apt-something is on APT-FORMS which is now dead. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=docstate=fter6b.5.94 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: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)
Nothing contained herein can or should be construed as legal advice.
IANAL. YPANAL. IHL.
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002, Richard Braakman wrote:
And even if you lift only a single chapter from a GFDLed document,
you have to copy all of its Invariant Sections verbatim.
That should most likely read something like copying more than is
acceptable usage of copyrighted material without copying the invariant
sections verbatim.
The combination of immutability and nonremovability is what makes
them non-free,
Depending on what portions of the documentation are under the
immutable nonremoveable section. I'd expect most people to agree that
placing the copyright and license under in a immutable nonremoveable
section doesn't make the documentation non-free, as, in most
copyrighted source code, the copyright and license are non-separable
and immutable themselves. [These options are what makes the GFDL so
tenuous to fit into a free or non-free category. Any decision as to a
particular piece of documentation necessarily requires that the
content and license options exercised under the GFDL be examined.]
Perhaps the DFDG could (in its detailed section) address which options
of the GFDL cannot be exercised if the documentation is to be included
in debian (with certain exeptions as agreed on?)
[On that note, before I contribute more to this discussion, I see some
archive reading in my future. {Links to related discussions|topics are
always appreciated.}]
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://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpEQJJnuzTS0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote: (I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I appreciate responses be CC'd to me.) Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately then. we don't have to worry about legal issues as much, being source-based, but I've been looking for that smoking gun that says the MPlayer is illegal, or even risky! I really do hope you and SM find a lawyer and talk to him or her. Just distributing source does not magically make you immune to legal challenges. Legal objection, That isn't torn to pieces? Please speak it now or, Forever hold your peace, eh? There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and patent issues. Unfortunatly, no one in the mplayer team seems to think these legal issues are important, or seems to be willing to take the time necessary to do an audit of their own codebase. They seem to be relying on debian-legal's pundits to act as their pseudo-counsellor to determine what is legal and what is not. I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5 minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they still haven't been fixed. Obviously, if after such a short bit of searching, that such a problem can be found brings a strong suspicion that there are other problems lurking within the codebase. Whoever takes it upon themselves to package mplayer for possible inclusion in Debian will most likely have to: 1) convince debian-legal that they have audited the codebase and determined that everything in the codebase is legal for Debian and it's distributors to distribute. 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision can be made. Until that happens, I'm pretty sure that the ftpmasters will refrain from allowing mplayer into the archives.[1] As far as I know, no Debian Developer or an individual sponsored by a Debian Developer has stepped forward and offered to do this. Until that happens, mplayer will (probably) not be in Debian. Note that I am speaking only on behalf of myself, not Debian. I am *NOT* qualified to speak on behalf of the project. If you think that I am, you're nuts, and should seek psychiatric or medical evaluation. Don Armstrong 1: Although, obviously, they will make their own decision, and could refuse even then. -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpzwuoxbFafp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5 minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they still haven't been fixed. Grr. Missing reference. 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01712.html Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpYveh0nWAwi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: Is this particularly good advice? Heh. It's not really even advice, since IANAL. I just think it's something that we should be aware of. It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid knowing anything about potentially relevant patents entirely. AFAIK, ignorance of patents doesen't protect you from being prosecuted and/or found liable under them, at least in the US. (Unlike the convergent re-creation of copyrighted works.) If someone else knows differently and can quote caselaw, please do. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgppaUBsS0Gxu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote: we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue himself for his own code. How can Debian be sure that that's the case? Debian (correctly) avoids areas of questionable legality like the plauge. AFAIR around 0.50 we checked our code for license infringing, and solved them either by contacting its author and requested permission for GPL relicensing, or by rewriting the code in question. How come the libmpeg2 issue wasn't caught? Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below? If MPlayer is not 100% GPL (except lrmi.c, but that can be left out, sacrificing the very useful VESA video output), we are willing to fix it. Wait a minute. So even to your knowledge Mplayer isn't completely under the GPL? Just be cautious, don't take an argument which also applies to xine If xine is not free according to the DFSG or contains material which it would be illegal for Debian to distribute in countries in which major mirrors are located, then someone should file an RC bug against xine, so the issues can be discussed and a concensus reached. It would sadden me to see that happen, but that's the way things work. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpJM55EGODS4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: Aside from the point that having knowledge of the patents can lead to charges of *willful* infringement, That's true. I should probably have said information about patents that are being actively prosecuted, but then again, if it's something that (in the minds of -legal) we can cease and desist quickly enough so that it isn't a risk, so be it. *Shrug*. Software patents are really annoying. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpZa7YtlCtxu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote: MPlayer's website: Also, why does debian-legal think they know what is GPL and what is not better than MPlayer and XAnim authors. If you want or need this point clairified, I suggest you contact RMS or an FSF representative. I believe it's fairly clear. And, even if they have audited the codebase, and they have convinced you that they have made a determination... what if they are wrong in their determination? Do you trust it? If they make a determination, -legal concurs, ftpmasters agree, it goes into debian, and a problem is found, an RC bug is filed, and the problem gets resolved. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpcTxRhlQHX5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. Yes. A lot of people ignore (rightly or wrongly) 2c. Should Debian ignore it? That's not for me to decide. What concerned me was that code as copied from another project (mpeg2dec) without carefully examining the license for that code, and utilizing the code under that license. I don't think that this [patent question] is reasonable. It was a concern of mine, but since it doesn't seem to be thought reasonable by other members of -legal, I withdraw it. [Not that it was ever more than a thought anyway.] Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpKxhuczLYhJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote: Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below? So after looking, I find that lrmi.c is under this license: Copyright (C) 1998 by Josh Vanderhoof You are free to distribute and modify this file, as long as you do not remove this copyright notice and clearly label modified versions as being modified. This software has NO WARRANTY. Use it at your own risk. Which seems (to me anyway) to be GPL compatible. No big deal there. The only questionable issue is the lack of labeling of modified versions, albiet the only modification made to lrmi.c is the addition of this line (oddly enough): diff lrmi.c lrmi.c.orig 11d10 Original location: http://cvs.debian.org/lrmi/ So now I'm totally clueless as to why lrmi.c was even brought up, besides the fact that someone hasn't done their licensing homework. Anyway, I hope Andrea Mennucc and company have been able to make sense of mplayer and can convince the ftpmasters that they have done so. Don Armstrong -- Tell me something interesting about yourself. Lie if you have to. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpH817xGRaHp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: another mplayer .deb of 0.90rc3 release
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Andrea Mennucc wrote: So if people on debian-legal thinks that it is important, I will add a diff of libmpeg2. Just so I'm not misunderstood, my point wasn't about a diff. [That's definetly not required at all. The use of diff was just to demonstrate that it had been modified.] Sorry if that wasn't clear. All that needs to be done for this issue is add a This file originated from mpeg2dec [url]. It was modified by foo for use in mplayer on date. Changes to this file include: * foo * baz A changelog is available at cvs.foo.bar. to each of the files from mpeg2dec [and probably from other GPL'ed libraries.] Obviously, if -legal feels that's superfluous, so be it. Don Armstrong -- Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien a ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher. (Perfection is apparently not achieved when nothing more can be added, but when nothing else can be removed.) -- Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, Terres des Hommes http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpJi3E5u7flk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: There is nothing to stop an author making a statement that You may copy distribute and modify this work under the terms of the GPL in combination with the following extra conditions, which shall override the GPL in cases of conflict. The author can (probably) do that, but what the eventual license actually allows or disallows is kind of murkey. Mixing and matching licenses is a bad idea, as the interpretation of such a license is (basically) left to the court system. Where's the problem? The main issue that I see is that the GPL is written in such a way that it does not allow it to be combined with other restrictions and still have the GPL take effect. In section 0 of the GPL: This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. Thus, someone could argue that the in the case of the use of the GPL but blah, the GPL itself did not apply. When we come up against one of these cases we should say Is this what you intended? I agree. As much as possible, we should respect the author's wishes, and courteously point out the problems that make such wishes incompatible with the DFSG or the licensing problems that make the terms of the license unclear. Ideally, the author will find a license that incorporates his wishes as much as possible, and remains compatible with the DFSG. Don Armstrong -- N: It's a ploy. B: What? N: This drug money funds terror, it's a ploy. B: Ploy? N: A manipulation. I mean 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpNTLP51sUC9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Per-project changelogs
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote: Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves. Quoting 2a directly: You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. I don't think that can be made much clearer. Should it stop a project's inclusion in debian? Probably not, because the project can quickly and painlessly modify the files to be in compliance with this term of the GPL. Don Armstrong -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpy67tpeKOdv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote: But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway. Yeah, but most[1] GNU programs don't use code from other GNU projects for which FSF doesn't own the copyright. So for them, the GPL doesn't apply. [And this clause doesn't really apply to in-project modification by the same author, although it might apply to in-project modification by different authors.] It's fuzzy enough that I think Changelogs match what's required, but also fuzzy enough that I want to clarify it. I'd agree that sufficiently detailed Changelogs fulfill the spirit of the requirement, but I'm pretty sure that they don't fulfill the leter of the requirement. Don Armstrong 1: I'm actually not aware of a single example of an FSF copyrighted GNU program that contains code for which the copyright hasn't been signed over to FSF. -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpItssJn3MUg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl module license clarification
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
On a Debian system a copy of the Perl license can be found in the file
'/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic'.
Or, as in my packages:
License: GPL, Artistic, available at /usr/share/common-licenses/{GPL,Artistic}
I would like to know what exactly the issue here is, and which course
of action to take to eliviate this issue.
While Troup is correct (in my opinion) that the licensing terms that
many perl modules place themselves under is vauge, it's well
understood in the community that under the same terms as perl itself
(currently) means a GPL+Artistic dual license.
However, it would probably be a good idea to get upstream to clarify
this in their licensing that they mean GPL+Artistic dual licensing, as
opposed to being tied to whatever license perl is released under at
that moment in time.
Should this keep your package from entering the archives? I'd expect
not, as it hasn't held up packages before.[1] But then again, it is
something that we should work with the perl module authors to fix if
we decide that it is a problem.
Don Armstrong
1: I mean, libuser-perl which I packaged only a few months ago
entered... and it has the same problem with the license statement.
--
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://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgphHL36JiJZj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl module license clarification
It's always usefull when people bring an issue up before a list to provide appropriate links to the context in which the decisions are being made, and or prior discussion on the decision. The threads on debian-perl[1][2] dealing with this issue explain the problems pretty well, and Colin and James come to (roughly) the same conclusions that I did. One of the issues raised in this thread, but not alluded to in the parent message is that Michael G Schwern (upstream) uses the under the same terms as perl itself and then only links to the Artistic license.[3] Michael should clarify in the copyright/license statement whether he means gpl+artistic or artistic only, due to the dissonance between these two statements. Don Armstrong 1:http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2003/debian-perl-200301/msg2.html 2:http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2003/debian-perl-200302/msg7.html 3:http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2003/debian-perl-200302/msg8.html -- We were at a chinese resturant. He was yelling at the waitress because there was a typo in his fortune cookie. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch31.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpuciCcXqwwh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl module license clarification
The following cannot and should not be construed as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: Maybe that is exactly what they want as in we simply follow the Perl license, wherever it takes us. That's the question that is being asked. Is that really what they mean? I'm really curious as to what specifically and exactly is wrong with this type of license delegation. The main problem I see is that the terms that the program is released under is (possibly) a moving target. What rights are guaranteed at some time in the future isn't known. [When using such a license you're basically asking for the court system to sort the legality out.[1]] There is probably a similar issue with stating that software is licensed under the GPL version 2 or any later version. Your missing a key phrase here: any later version AT YOUR OPTION. Isn't that also delegation to another license? In this case, the GPL version 2 is known to apply, as could any other version of the GPL. While it implies a sense of trust in the authors of the GPL, the terms under which the program is released are at least GPL version 2. This is not the case in the perl module licensing issue. Don Armstrong 1: I'm tempted to try to find case law regarding this issue... but clarity is often better than allowing vague areas where there could be a ruling. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp3FQR7LSlXV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. On Sun, 09 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Perhaps (taking the GPL as a hint): This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl itself, version 5.3 or (at your option) any later version. I brought the issue up on perlmonks in a mediation, and Jenda suggested a similar clarification.[1] I personally would recommend making it exactly like the GPL's clause: This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl version 5.3 itself, or the same terms and conditions as any later version of Perl itself at your option. Primarily because I think it's clearer, and parentheticals are strange in legal documents. But I suspect that it would be interpreted as more verbose version of the clause that Glenn wrote above. But this still does not mention explicitly the licenses (GPL+Artistic) and that seems to be the key issue. That was one of the problems that was brought up, but it stemed from the fact that the copyright/license statement doesn't dictate which version of perl's terms the module is licensed under. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=232825 -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpVK7qObmwT0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: Time to check it out again! Quoting from https://www.helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl [2.1] (d) You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site); and 1.7 Externally Deploy means to Deploy the Covered Code in any way that may be accessed or used by anyone other than You, used to provide any services to anyone other than You, or used in any way to deliver any content to anyone other than You, whether the Covered Code is distributed to those parties, made available as an application intended for use over a computer network, or used to provide services or otherwise deliver content to anyone other than You. This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me. And then the neatoid if you sue us for patent violations, you can't use this software section: 11.1 Term and Termination. The term of this License is perpetual unless terminated as provided below. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: (c) automatically without notice from Licensor if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Licensor (including by cross-claim or counter claim in a lawsuit); There's been more than enough discussion about this particular problem on -legal and the descrimination against different fields of endeavor that it entails. As a parting note, it is troubling that they call a license version 1.0, and then have a revision date associated with it. The RPSL should really be refered to as RPSL version 1.0 as of 10/28/2002 or some such. [Or they should incrememnt the version numbers when they change something.] Don Armstrong -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp7g4XP9DT1d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#180798: ITP: multisync -- A program to syncronize PIM data
[Mikael, I'm sending this query both to you and -legal, and setting the Mail-Followup-To: on the assumption that you're not subscribed to -legal as well. Please correct me if I have assumed incorrectly.] What is the currently recommended method for adding a linking exception (say with OpenSSL) to a program licensed under the GPL? I tried to find an example in the archives of a proper application of an exception, however, I was unable to find it. [References to applicable discussions appreciated.] Specifically, altering the GPL itself to add the exception seems to clearly violate the copyright statement (underlined below) of the GPL itself. I would gather that an addition to the copyright statement with the stipulation given in multisync's 2(d) would be acceptable, but I'm not aware of the precedence in cases like this. On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mikael Andersson wrote: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. ^^^ d) OpenSSL Toolkit License Exception; You are explicitly allowed to compile and distribute the MultiSync software with the OpenSSL Toolkit. Thank you, Mikael, for working with upstream and -legal on this issue. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpNtfcabtER0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#180798: ITP: multisync -- A program to syncronize PIM data
This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer. On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 22:21, Don Armstrong wrote: What is the currently recommended method for adding a linking exception (say with OpenSSL) to a program licensed under the GPL? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs Mikael, if you could get Bo to change his copyright statement to this, [as recommended in the link Anthony provided] that should clear up the licensing issue, without having to modify the GPL. [And it would avoid having lintian complain...] Copyright (C) 2002 Bo Lincoln [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 of the License, 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; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA In addition, as a special exception, Bo Lincoln gives permission to link the code of this program with the OpenSSL library (or with modified versions of OpenSSL that use the same license as OpenSSL), and distribute linked combinations including the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. END Don Armstrong -- Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien a ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher. (Perfection is apparently not achieved when nothing more can be added, but when nothing else can be removed.) -- Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, Terres des Hommes http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp5hrS6bFrqH.pgp Description: PGP signature
(False) License Statements [Re: Bug#180798: ITP: multisync -- A program to syncronize PIM data]
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: In such case it could have potentially troubleful to have real-life license statements floating aroung, and probably quoted out of context by people who are not careful with relating the full context of the quote. Quotes taken out of context are often dangerous. Major legal disasters *might* result if such a dummy were, by accident, to be interpreted as the real thing. If someone failed to do the research behind their software's license, there's little that can be done to avert a legal disaster. Google searches are not a replacement for talking with upstream and confirming the license and or copyright of a project. Let's not write dummies for which this is possible. The idea behind writing this clause was so that the maintainer would be able to copy it out and send it upstream, verbatim, for approval. While I agree that one should make the context as clear as possible, I don't believe obfuscating what is being discussed is necessarily the proper way to go about ensuring that the context is made clear, especially if it inhibits the discussion that is ocurring. [And now, looking at my randomly chosen signature, I wonder if someone is going to accuse me of being a murderer someday.] Don Armstrong -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpLT6k3Acy4H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNOME Font Copyright
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying in exchange for distributing the non-free fonts on GNOME's FTP site, Bitstream will ultimately release the fonts under a DFSG-free[1] license? As far as I can tell, the vera fonts are not available from gnome's ftp site yet. [Feel free to provide linkage to demonstrate otherwise.] If so, where did you get this information? The press release[2] is fairly clear that Bitstream is planning on releasing the fonts under a license that will fulfill DFSG #1: The Bitstream Vera fonts will be available for free copying and redistribution and can be modified as long as the font name is changed. The fonts cannot be packaged by themselves for sale, but can be sold with any software. The GNOME Foundation will incorporate the fonts into future GNOME releases, giving end users of all levels, as well as GNOME developers, the advanced display capabilities they offer. Of course, until the license is finalized, we're just discussing the freeness of the draft license, not the freeness of any specific package that may be placed under such a license. That is, unless Bitstream has finalized the license vera is being released under, the ITP (#182212) will have to wait. so perhaps it is more accurate to describe Bitstream's desire as seeking compliance with the DFSG or OSD than software freedom. Could you please be a bit more specific as to why you see the draft license encumbering your freedom to do with the fonts as you wish? I'm not sure I follow your argument about the software (well, fonts in this case) being DFSG free but not being Free Software. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.bitstream.com/categories/news/press/2003_bitstream/012203_gnome.htm -- Tell me something interesting about yourself. Lie if you have to. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgptoOO4HwTcf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNOME Font Copyright
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream eventually supplies DFSG-free software. You're asking the wrong people then, since (as far as I know) none of -legal were involved in the bargaining, we can't answer that question. Howver, I personally would be very surprised if there was a quid pro quo involved. that clause might be the only clause keeping Bitstream's license from being a Free Software license. Could you expand on your reasoning why that clause would keep Bitstream's license from being a Free Software license while it would qualify under the DFSG? On a personal level, that clause's uniqueness looks like a potential pain in the ass to comply with because I find it handy to distribute individual programs for a fee. So just remember to distribute the fonts with Gnome. Anytime you're selling stuff you should (probably) be retaining legal counsel to comb through the licenses and accertain the legality of what you are doing. I'm not sure I follow your argument about the software (well, fonts in this case) being DFSG free but not being Free Software. Free Software is the term I understand to refer to the GNU project's term. DFSG-free is a different term I understand to refer to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. That's precisely my question. Why does the inability to sell these fonts alone make them not Free Software (while they remain DFSG free)? As far as I can tell, the inability to sell them alone does not restrict any of the 4 freedoms required for software to be free software.[1] * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpNs1ZRzFset.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John Goerzen wrote: I'm not sure this really makes sense. We have seen other software licensed with GPL with exceptions before -- such as software that uses OpenSSL. I think this is a case of the copyright holder using GPL with exceptions. We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these exceptions grant additional rights, instead of imposing additional restrictions. I am unaware of any programs distributed in Debian that are licensed under the GNU GPL with exceptions that impose additional restrictions. Don Armstrong -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpV88Hcbw29w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these exceptions grant additional rights, instead of imposing additional restrictions. Good point. I wonder, though, if the difference is important? As far as their ability to qualify as free under the DFSG, yes. If a software is free to begin with, the granting of more rights to the licensee shouldn't make it non-free. [At least, I can't think of an example where this would be the case. It may be possible to make a claim in certain cases regarding Fields of Endeavor, but that seems to be rather contrived.] 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpp6K1H2wdPt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: One way in which it differs from the Zope web bug, is that the GPL clause only applies when you want to distribute your changes. Which would mean Debian's required to include the code in its packages, but users are free to remove it themselves, if they wish. Although, if PHPNuke has javascript (or similar) that is being executed on the client side, a case could be made that use of phpnuke on a website is equivalent to distributing it. [If someone is aware of the FSF or arguments saying otherwise, I'd be glad to hear them.] 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpH4SZe8Z01H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG convergence
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: According to (2)(c) of version 2 of the GNU GPL, the only code which announces anything that you're not allowed to remove is the copyright notice and the warranty disclaimer. There are four things that you are not allowed to remove: 1. copyright notice 2. warranty notice 3. redistribution under these conditions 4. how to view license which I've marked in a portion of 2c) below for reference. to print or display an announcement including an (1) appropriate copyright notice and a (2) notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may (3) redistribute the program under these conditions, and (4) telling the user how to view a copy of this License. Strictly interpreted[1], that does not include a statement of the license terms, or a reference to same. I'd argue that '4' includes a reference to the terms of the license. [It's always been my understanding that the You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.[1] clause (or similar) is the reference to the license required by '4'] Of course, if you're saying that the copyright statement doesn't include a statement of the license terms or a statement of how to get the license, that is my understanding as well. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4 -- Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien a ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher. (Perfection is apparently not achieved when nothing more can be added, but when nothing else can be removed.) -- Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, Terres des Hommes http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpxjJJ0ZgfPx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG convergence
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote: Note: I know of no legal jurisdictions that assign legal rights to executing computer processes. Aparently, this will happen in 2053: Berne, the Finn said, ignoring him. Berne. It's got limited Swiss citizenship under their equivalent of the Act of '53. Built for Tessier-Ashpool S.A. They own the mainframe and the original software. What's in Beme, okay? Case deliberately stepped between them. Wintermute is the recognition code for an AI. I've got the Turing Registry numbers. Artificial intelligence. -- William Gibson, _Neuromancer_ Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpZImTlpdj9G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of programs to be used in specific ways. I can't yet codify what I feel is wrong with it, and what I would do to change it, but I hope to be able to do so in a few days. On Sun, 02 Mar 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: It's the modification that is covered, and you're not allowed to modify in such a way as to remove a copyright notice that is normally displayed on startup. You are allowed to modify the code to remove the copyright notice, but you are not allowed to distribute code that contains such a modification. [2a-c only applies to distribution of modifications. The first part of 2 You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program is typically interpreted to mean that any modification is allowed, as long as you don't distribute it. (Fair use also comes into play here.)] The question seemingly revolves around whether or not PHPNuke is being distributed when the end user deploys the software. If it isn't, then the author's blocking end user modification doesn't fall under the GPL, and the license should be changed to reflect the author's wishes [if the author can in fact do so.] If it is, then we have to determine whether the inability to hide the copyright announcement makes the program restricted enough for it to be non-free. My current gut feeling is that the copyright announcement should be accessible to the end user, in a manner calculated to be readily apparent, but it need not harass the user in every invocation. Don Armstrong -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpHuvPkoY3N4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Xbae widget license
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Joop Stakenborg wrote: Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this material for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, I'm concerned that this restricts us (or our cd vendors) from being able to distribute the material for a fee [ie, on cd images and the like.] If it was written 'with or without fee' I suppose it would be ok, or if there was some clarification that indicated that a reasonable fee for the medium could be charged. [For reference, the X Consortium and the Open Group's licenses[1] don't have this problem, because they enumerate 'sell this material' as one of the permissions granted... and this license seems to follow their lead.] I am a bit worried about the line: 'that the name of any author not be used in advertising or publicity bla bla'. Debian won't explicitely advertise this widget I guess, so that would be okay? That worried me a bit as well, although what I presume they mean is that you may not use bellcore or the authors names to endorse your product or whatever. Perhaps a clarification from the author would be sufficient here? (The other X style licenses are much clearer in this regard.) Don Armstrong 1: http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE2.html#3 -- Build a fire for a man, and 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpJ1ZVAgSv6v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Xbae widget license
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: Does this mean that you can do these things without paying a fee to upstream, or that you can only do these things if you don't charge a fee for doing so? As far as I can tell, the license isn't clear as to what is being done 'without fee'. All of the similar free licenses I could find include selling as the list of permisions, which make it obvious that the 'without fee' means the original grant of permision is made without payment expected. However, if we could get upstream to weigh in on this and/or clarify, it would be good. This seems to be the same as the 3-clause BSD license's third clause. I believe negative advertising clauses are always OK. 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. It's slightly different because it talks about advertising and promotion versus endorsement or promotion of products. [Ie, it seemingly restricts being able to list the upstream author in connection with the original piece of software.] I don't think this should cause a problem for Debian unless upstream views this clause as making us unable to identify upstream in copyright files and on the web. Don Armstrong -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp0RPbYbifc8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: Let me point you to the plain language of 17 USC? I am quoting for you the relevant section of 106: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; Note that it does not say: (2) to dsitribute derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; Unfortunatly, it's not enough to quote section 106, as 107 (the Fair Use section) limits the exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder. I would be surprised if you could find case law holding that private modification without distribution did not fall under 107. [But if you can, please do.] Don Armstrong -- I never until now realized that the primary job of any emoticon is to say excuse me, that didn't make any sense. ;-P -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpNcQhy6sBih.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Russell Nelson wrote: The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable under the same conditions as non-modified versions. 3. The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. [1] Can you please explain to me how #3 doesn't require modified and derived works to be distributable under the same terms as the non-modified version? The 'them' in this case clearly refers to the modified and/or derived works which must be able to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpR8yq6z9diP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: Is this a joke? Asks someone whose wit is of great renown. FDR's Four Freedoms are not the same as the FSF's. In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants --everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor --anywhere in the wold. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.[1] Don Armstrong 1: FDR's Four Freedoms Speach http://www.libertynet.org/~edcivic/fdr.html -- 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp0gNxZfYJx9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote: BUT -- (2)(c) ONLY takes effect if the user is distributing the source to a modified program AND that program is intractive. No! (2)(c) doesn't contain the first part of that -- it doesn't require distribution! See my other messages in this thread. You're ignoring 2 itself: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:[4] Additionally, fair use itself limits even the applicability of the copyright, as explained in [1] [2] and [3]. Don Armstrong 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00121.html 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00168.html 3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00261.html 4: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html -- There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. Bach http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpf5kraBSNWR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: Which is ambiguous in itself. Duly noted. I've been conviently ignoring the ambiguity (for now). Suffice it to say that between the abiguity and USC Title 17 Section 107 [not to mention the impraticality of finding someone who modifies without distributing] you're pretty much talking about this section (or the license in it's entirety) applying only when you're distributing. Don Armstrong -- If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpgGWputW2nq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, Mark Rafn wrote: An additional point to make is that a license is neither free nor non-free. We've examined licenses before to determine whether they live up to the DFSG in the general sense, although you are correct that such an interpretation doesn't necessarily extend to packages under those licenses with additional stipulations or clarifications. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp3zqWpWc398.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote: What exactly am I ignoring here? Nothing here seems to require that I distribute modified copies. Perhaps I misunderstood you. What I was getting at is that 2 a-c doesn't apply to modifications you make that you do not distribute. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp17l6biRIWR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html I'd appreciate comments. It seems quite usefull to me, at least for starters. However, if you (or your contributors) could add links to the portions of the debian-legal archive where issues mentioned in the FAQ have been discussed previously, that would also be usefull. This also ties in slightly with a mini-project that I have been considering for a while to sumarize the arguments for or against a specific license as discussed on -legal, and provide links to the original discussion, perhaps in a website or similar. [That way the caselaw of -legal becomes a bit more formal, or at least readily accessible without relying on google to bore through the archives.] Don Armstrong -- If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpJ2WWmov53n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider something more like: If you have distributed a modified version of The Work, then if you receive a request by the Primary Copyright Holder (named above), you must provide a copy of your modifications as at the time you receive the request, at cost, to the Primary Copyright Holder. Unfortunatly, this clause has the distribution versus deployment problem, and thus fails to close the ASP loophole. Furthermore, the clause doesn't distinguish between your modifications and the modified version you are distributing. This could allow the following interpretation: I distribute modification set A which I didn't even develop. I generate modification set B which I've merged with proprietary code, or code under NDA, or any other form of non-freely distributable code. The Primary Copyright Holder requires from me modification set B in accordance with the license, even though I haven't distributed that set. Assuming this problem was cleared up, there is still yet another issue: I'm an anarchist dissident (who runs RaiseTheFist), and for reasons known only to me, I have altered a web based forum to encode messages to other dissidents in the source code of the forum software itself. The PCH knows that I am using his software, and requests the modifications for cost. Now the PCH can recover all of the messages I've been sending to other dissidents. It seems to me that compulsory provision of source code to people to whom the modified version has not been distributed, or are not in the distribution path, is wrought with danger. Don't get me wrong, I dislike the idea of seeing GPLed code utilized in ASP where there is little to no contribution of modifications to the community, but perhaps we should concentrate on using social pressure against those who would avoid distributing source versus legal pressure? Don Armstrong -- N: It's a ploy. B: What? N: This drug money funds terror, it's a ploy. B: Ploy? N: A manipulation. I mean 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpKlalMA6f2r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses? I'm beginning to think that there is, as it restricts the use that an individual can put a given bit of source to in his or her own home. First, does that cause any problems for Debian? I don't think it would cause a problem with the majority of people who are using or modifying Free Software, as (I would imagine) most of them don't have anything to hide... but to someone who does? As a mental exercise, try replacing The Chinese Dissident Test with The Al Qa'ida Terrorist Test Heh. It's funny that you mentioned this, as originally I was going to use The Base instead of the proto anarchist of raisethefist,[1] but decided that it would merely cloud the issue. The companies who want to include NDA'ed, patented or secret technology in programs have pretty much the same problem they'd have if they were using the GPL, and needed to distribute such programs to their customers; True, but the knowledge that they can't distribute is a certainty. I see that this could force people in such a situation to spend the time that they might spend improving GPLed tools (whilst keeping the NDAed portions secret) extending other tools instead. [Of course, you could extend the same argument to distribute as well, but it seems that experience has taught us that extenders of BSD code don't often contribute their changes to the community.] A number of companies, and the FSF, want to see this loophole removed; I think we should be _very_ sure of our reasons before dismissing their attempts. I agree completely, and I'm glad that we're discussing it as thoroughly as possible. Regardless of the our eventual consensus, the discussion will make the logic behind the eventual change (if any) that much stronger. Don Armstrong 1: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/ -- Filing a bug is probably not going to get it fixed any faster. -- Anthony Towns http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpTJxl7DhuOG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote: Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not. Because the preparation of derivative works is one of the exclusive rights of copyright holders. Please read 17 USC 106 (2) again. Yet again, it is not enough to cite 17 USC 106 (2), without citing 17 USC 107 and the caselaw based on 17 USC 107. Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current interpretation of Fair Use applies to cases where there is no copying taking place. You are free to disagree, but merely citing 106 is not sufficient. Don Armstrong -- If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpEOEvRGzjUr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
[Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done neither, so you need not Cc: me.] On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current interpretation of Fair Use applies to cases where there is no copying taking place. I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual Fair Use analysis in another message. Fortunatly, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION v. TEXACO INC., 60 F.3d 913 (2nd Cir. 1994) is a rather narrow decision, and applies to a case where there actually was distribution (albiet internal) and where there was institutional, systematic copying.[1] I'm still at a loss as to how you intend for the this decision to apply to the elimination of Fair Use rights of software. Furthermore, I'd hope that RMS and others would prefer that people be able to do with software as they wished in their own homes, so long as they didn't distribute it. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpvYDiG9KES7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dual licensed software
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This unfortunately is not satisfactory. See on the main JpGraph page
the actual license grant:
] JpGraph is released under a dual license.
]
] QPL 1.0 (Qt Free Licensee) For non-commercial, open-source and
] educational use and JpGraph Professional License for commercial use.
]
] Basically it means that if you or your company develops non open
] source software and have financial gains, either directly or
] indirectly (for example by improving a business process), by using
] JpGraph this counts as commercial use.
So if you are IBM, say, and you get any financial gain because you use
JpGraph to prepare reports, then you are a commercial use, and you
are not allowed to distribute under the QPL.
I agree.
The terms of the copyright statement clearly make it non-free, because
it violates DFSG #6 and #7. [No discrimination against fields of
endeavor, and the distribution of license clause. {The license we
distribute it under must apply to everyone who we can distribute it to.}]
If the comercial license was somehow free, this would satisfy #6, but
it still wouldn't satisfy #7.
[It's not truely dual licensed either. It's one license for one group,
and another license for another group.]
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://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpyufdsGV6ZV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote: Is there a *standard* boilerplate for a BSD-type or say maximally free non-copyleft license (if BSD doesn't cut it). You're looking for the Modified BSD or so called, 3-clause BSD license. FE, see http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5 Copyright 4049 by Foo Bar Baz III. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR `AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. I looked through the rest of your terms, and it seems to meet them, but obviously, this isn't legal advice, so if you have questions, you should consider asking a lawyer. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpehokH6XBCW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHPNuke license
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall. The articles in question were circulated throughout the company so they could be copied by employees. [Hence the interal distribution...] Sure, but it would have had to be substancial enough for fair use to kick in. And there's *still* the other three factors to consider. Could be, but I think we're agreeing that AGU v Texaco doesn't apply to personal in home modification. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpbuHN5GqJ4R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: I think Dave's recommendation of the MIT/X11 license, though he didn't call it by that name, is preferable, because it sticks closer to the legal scope of copyright law. Could be. They're slightly different of course, and I'm not well equiped to argue whether the terms of the BSD license step outside of the boundaries able to be enforced from copyright law. Publicity rights are not within the scope of copyright law. The right to use people's names or likenesses to promote things is not assumed to attach to copyright licenses in the first place. I'd hope so, but you never know these days.[1] Regardless, their idea is that if you then used their names, it gives their lawyers an extra stick to beat you with, beyond just using the standard slander/libel laws. [Plus, they get to bring in the FBI to track you down.] Don Armstrong 1: [rant deleted] -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp9s3XUoPokB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to have many sticks with which to beat the licensee should be rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote freedom. I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license promotes freedom; we should worry whether a license restricts that freedom or not. Licenses that terrorize the licensee and discourage him or her from exercising the rights he or she should be able to expect from a Free Software license are not the sort of thing people should need to worry about coming from Debian main. Certainly. I'm just commenting on the motivation behind the clause. Since the actual action that the clause prevents is (at least in the US) illegal in itself, I don't see a significant problem for Debian. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpzTXD9XOiOV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license promotes freedom; we should worry whether a license restricts that freedom or not. I disagree. Our Social Contract says that our priorities are our users and Free Software. This means that we expect ourselves to be advocates of and defenders of these priorities. I agree that we should be promoting freedom. However, I don't think that our licenses need to promote freedom, so long as they don't restrict it. That is, I don't think I'll ever see the day where we decide not to package BSD or X licensed software merely because it fails to promote freedom. [If that indeed was the point you were driving at... perhaps I've misunderstood what you were getting at when you used promote.] The job of a copyright license is to *grant permissions*. And often to restrict them, as is the case in the GPL (linking, etc.), and many no warranty clauses. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpAhe4CI89wn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content... I've seen this meme popping up in a couple of places. Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this statement? Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpfX6Vx1KTDa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
On Thu, 01 May 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content... Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this statement? I should remind myself to follow up with all of my unread mail before asking questions which are easily answered.[1] Although, note the dissonance between [1] and [2]: In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license permits only verbatim copying of the entire GPL. Wheras [1] in the FAQ says something to the effect of: If you modify it, we probably wont take legal action against you Of course, the language of the GPL copyright clause itself is prety clear that it precludes modification. [I guess the FSF just wants it both ways...] Don Armstrong 1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCModifyGPL 2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble -- I never until now realized that the primary job of any emoticon is to say excuse me, that didn't make any sense. ;-P -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpXv33IeHgkR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
On Thu, 08 May 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine .orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used. I'd actually expect apt-get source foo to return sources that are DFSG free, when foo is in main or contrib. Granted, you should be checking the licenses of any source that you use before you use it, but I would assume many of us expect all of the software and sources in main to be free under the DFSG. If you don't have a pristine .orig.tar.gz anyway, then it's silly to include unused non-free stuff, but it's not cause for a REJECT. But it seems strange (to me anyway) that an ftp-master would be finding this out in a situation where a maintainer didn't already know about it. Either someone didn't look over the code and licenses when they were packaging, didn't examine the diff between versions, was otherwise unaware of what they were uploading, or knew and didn't have time to do anything abou it. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpqq70EPpoe5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questioning the Public Domain'ness of certain data
On Thu, 08 May 2003, Elizabeth Barham wrote: I have written a program that parses the data available here: http://www.fda.gov/cder/ndc/ and places it into a database. Neat. My intention is to release a debian package containing Berkely DB databases that contain the same data as found in the above-cited URL. How do you suggest I proceed? As the information in that database changes rapidly [Data Files Updated through 3/31/2003], perhaps it would be better to include your program that downloads and parses the data on the site instead of including the data itself? I would presume that it is important to the end users of this dataset to have a relatively up to date set of data, and as the package of such data in stable could be out of date by more two years before the next stable release, they'd probably prefer a method of updating the dataset to an outdated one. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpR7d0cJEFwk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: caml-light licence question.
An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written by a non-english common law attorney.] On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source + patches, not binaries, That's correct. BTW, what should i understand of the english sentence construction of the user undertakes to apply to obtain It sound very much un-english, but then, maybe i just misunderstand. It's english, but it's a rather unholy application of the vauge principles of english sentence construction. The clause means in effect: The user must obtain the expressed approval of INRIA to distribute the software outside the scope of this license. (Which is basically a no-op anyway.) Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or integrating it in another software is allowed only if the distribution consists of the unmodified, original source files for the software, along with difference files (patches) to be applied by the user of the derivative work. As you've already pointed out, this prohibits us from distributing modified binaries, and fails DFSG #3 and #4. As regards any other type of distribution, the user undertakes to apply to obtain the express approval of INRIA. This is the no-op explained above. Please note that the software is a product currently being developed. INRIA shall not be responsible in any way concerning conformity, and in particular shall not be liable should the software not comply with the requirements of the user, INRIA not being obliged to repair any possible direct or indirect damage. Weird NO WARRANTY clause. INRIA freely grants the right to distribute bytecode executable files generated by the Caml Light compiler (camlc). Binaries of the Caml Light run-time system (camlrun), with the sole condition that the documentation include the following statement: This software includes the Caml Light run-time system, which is copyright 1991-1997, INRIA. Executable files that include the Caml Light interactive system (such as those generated by the camlmktop command) can also be distributed freely, with the sole condition that the distribution includes the following statement: This software includes the Caml Light interactive system, which is copyright 1991-1997, INRIA. The requirement to include the copyright notice looks fine to me. [Notice in documentation or in distribution.] As far as I can tell, with the exception of the ability to distribute modified binaries (the qmail problem), the license seems to be Free. You may also want to suggest that the upstream author(s) consider using a more established license that more conventionally states their wishes instead of using what appears to be a home-grown license. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpTjCCGB7jy9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: caml-light licence question.
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or integrating it in another software is allowed only if the distribution consists of the unmodified, original source files for the software, along with difference files (patches) to be applied by the user of the derivative work. As you've already pointed out, this prohibits us from distributing modified binaries, and fails DFSG #3 and #4. Would adding a and is allowed to distribute binaries resulting from building this patched source be enough to make it free ? I think that whole paragraph needs to be re-written, as the distribution of modified binaries seems to conflict with the is allowed only if... unmodified original source files phrase. I'm not quite sure exactly what they would prefer to see as far as source code and modification availability (and if they want copyleft, it would basically be the same conditions as the GPL v2.) since it is upstream who has come to me asking about packaging this, they should make the effort of changing the licence, i think. Good luck with that. Feel free to refer them to -legal if they need clarification, and thanks for veing diligent about the licensing. Don Armstrong -- I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was: We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel. -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgplbLdHnn4Mm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: Now what are you going to do with the overriding requirement that you can't do baz? Let's see... The result looks EXACTLY like: Copyright 2003 Joe Blow. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 1) You can do foo. 2) You can do bar. 3) Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS Can you quote caselaw that demonstrates this to be the case? As far as I can remember, I've never heard of such a license with additional riders being litigated. [But then again, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in licenses.] I hope we can agree that the fact that such a license contains an internal contradiction is open to interpretation, and litigation (most likely) would have to ensue with an as of yet undetermined outcome. The acceptance of licenses into Debian with dubious legality and/or grants of permision is not something that we should coutenance lightly. [I know that if such a license were to cross my desk for a project that I was doing any serious work on, I would require clarification from legal counsel and most likely they would want to see some sort of clarification from the author as well.] Don Armstrong -- There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Bach http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpV8A2riBWh1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it. Sure. I think most of us would agree that an unequivocally proper phrasing of such a construction is to rewrite the entire license. There may be less strenuous proper phrasings, but I can't think of one that addresses all of my concerns. It would then follow that the question becomes where do we draw the line? I think that's something that we will have to broach for each license that we discuss, until we get a good feel for it. I'd gather that most of us agree with additions that grant permisions, but a few of us are wary of additions that add restrictions. [I think some of the discussion regarding mplayer bears this out.] Don Armstrong -- 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpegqWyAEIvD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does mplayer has PATENT problems that stop it from going into debian?
On Mon, 26 May 2003, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: Does mplayer has patent problems that stop it from going into debian? mplayer may or may not have patent problems, but they are not what is stopping it from going into Debian. Please read the threads starting at [1] [2] for more information on why mplayer is currently not in debian. Don Armstrong 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01676.html 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00168.html -- 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpUF9QZmHlaj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Summary of the GFDL debate
On Thu, 05 Jun 2003, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: And yes, I know I should probably be answered Read the archives, but I don't have the time, and I think I'm not the only one :( Has anyone written such a summary ? Not to my knowledge. The closest thing so far is Anthony Town's draft statement: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html I've been planning on revising it with an ear to the current discussion, but as of yet have not had time. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpzouZd89Boq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages
On Mon, 09 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote: D. J. Bernstein maintains a website with documentation texts but because all these texts are not licensed under a DFSG-free license it is not possible to convert these pages into man pages and put them in the *-installer/*-src-Packages. To remove confusion, could you please specify which license these manuals or texts are under and link directly to them on DJB's website? In just a brief survey of his site, I was unable to quickly locate the man pages and/or the license(s) they are released under. [SNIP] I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this text is good enough. Also I'm not a native english-speaker so maybe this is not really good english. So I would be glad about improvements of the above text. It seems ok to me, but I really can't even guess at it without actually looking at the license that the manuals are released under. Don Armstrong -- I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was: We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel. -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp9zeIP8WBwt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote: On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: To remove confusion, could you please specify which license these manuals or texts are under and link directly to them on DJB's website? There is no license. Hrm. Well, that usually means that all rights are reserved, and the works are protected under copyright law. Of course, since its on a webpage, copying for fair use is probably ok, so downloading it shouldn't be a big deal in countries which have a concept of fair use. If there is no license I think it's simply completely copyrighted. Yes, that's usually the case. But I wonder what does that mean to me. Is a program which extracts these copyrighted texts from his website to create man pages still legal? With the understanding that the following is not legal advice, I'd presume that such a program would still be legal, unless the DMCA could somehow be made to apply to it. Or is the distribution of such a program legal but the use of it is illegal? Assuming the use fell under fair use, it would be legal. It's definetly not legal for debian to distribute the man pages, but I don't think it would be a big deal for users to use such a program. [I'd be really surprised if someone couldn't get Betamax to apply to such a usage.] Don Armstrong -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpR98pMaVNYu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote: What do you think about debian packages like daemontools-installer which could use such a program to create the man pages and put them into the resulting debian packages? As I understand this this is quite ok because the user starts build-daemontools to build the debian package with the non-free man pages and this package is not distributed by Debian. Is this correct? That is my understanding as well. The end user should be protected under fair use doctrines (where applicable), and debian is protected because its actions are not facilitating copyright infringement (assuming fair use) or participating in infringement itself. Ideally, you would be able to get clarification from upstream about the license that the documentation is under, so they could be included directly with the package. Baring that, the installer approach should work and be legal. Don Armstrong -- 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgphmtHuRKAvD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: simple translation copyright issues
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: I believe you're mistaken about the minimum-length requirement: It's more of a minimum creative content requirement. It's very difficult to defent a copyright on a work that has so little content that it contains little or no creative material. I presume that's what Branden was getting at. several artists have copyrighted silent pieces of music, for example. To my knowledge, none of these pieces have had their copyrights successfully defended. Furthermore, what is copyrighted is typically the donut (eg. the music punctuated by silence) rather than the hole itself (eg. the silence.) [Or at least, that's what I'd expect any sane lawyer to argue who wished to see his client's copyright argument prevail.] [I herby copyright these 7 spaces: ' '.] There is also the emerging field of nanofiction, which is confined to 55 words or less. Many of Emily Dickinson's poems are shorter than that, and each would receive separate copyright protection. Presumably these works contain some spark of creativity, which is most likely copyrightable. Moreover, they are most likely defendable copyrights. [However, my spaces above are probably not... but maybe if I stuck them on a 15m wide canvas with a nice soothing white background with 2m high black apostrophes they would be...] 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpBFhT5NZgNT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, MJ Ray wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every time you run the program a free software license? The act of running the program is not restricted by a copyright licence, so would that even be a valid licence? Acts of usage are restricted by many software licenses. I'm not aware of one that has been successfully defended, as they're primarily used against competitors, not users, but it's definetly possible. Obviously, such a license would be non-free though. [At least, I hope it's obvious.] Don Armstrong -- Of course, there are ceases 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpgQORsm0kFG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL and man pages
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Florian Weimer wrote: Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unless the FSF is the sole copyright holder of the relevant GFDL document, their interpretation of the license is irrelevant. Then why do we discuss at all? The court system is the interpretation that matters. However, until we actually get a few court decisions regarding (and interpreting) the license, we're left with our reading and understanding of it. The FSF folks occasionally are more lenient with their interpretation of licenses than a very strict reading would indicate. In cases where they are the sole copyright holder, that's acceptable, especially in areas where the license is less than clear. Yet, if there is someone else holding the license, without a statement from them regarding its interpretation, we have to read the license strictly, and conservatively. [In many cases the FSF says to effect: Well, the license may or may not preclude this, but we feel that it's resonable for you to do X, Y and Z. In lieu of such a statement, we should probably assume that we cannot do X, Y, and Z, even if it would make such a license non-free.] Don Armstrong -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpW3Xd6sj26B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you that the same thing is repeated a gillion times. Everything I've read so far has claimed that (c) has no force of law, whereas c-in-a-circle does. However, I'm unaware of a court decision saying so one way or another. Non-legislative interpretations are nice, but it doesn't have weight like judicial precedent. Futhermore, in the US, the only thing such an omission would do is effectively remove the copyright statement, not invalidate the copyright itself. I would not be surprised if you could make the claim that in systems where there is no equivalent of a c-in-a-circle, (c) fulfills the same role. I'd be genuinely surprised if most US courts didn't buy that argument as well. [I can't speak for other court systems, however.] there is a reference which says that even trivial errors in certain parts of the notice count as no notice at all. But as far as no notice goes, it still doesn't invalidate the copyright; it just means that a defendant in such a case can claim that they weren't aware of the copyright and avoid whatever the appropriate escalation of damages is. Now that we've gone through that, when you're copyrighting something, the smart money is on doing _both_. Use Copyright (c) 1997 Foo Bar Baz. Blah Blah Blah. Unless I've totally missunderstood the situtation at worst, (c) will be interpreted as a no-op, and the copyright statement will still control. At best, (c) will be equivalent to c-in-a-circle, and you're still at the same situation. Although I still wonder whether ascii art c-in-a-circle symbols are ok. ___ / \ | C | 1997 Foo Bar Baz. No Rights Reserved. \___/ Don Armstrong -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpT5ujNPCXbX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
[NB: I'm subscribed... don't need to be CC'ed.] On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: In general, such claims don't work, because of the whole point of the statement: to have a single, unambiguous, bright-line test for what is a valid copyright notice, so that no interpretation, guesswork, or the like is necessary. Definetly. If I was to give advice, it would be to use 'Copyright (c)' etc. I was just playing devils advocate for a second and noting that there has been no precedent saying that (c) is not equivalent to c-in-a-circle (at least to my knowledge.) Because of that, it's not possible to know if (c) 1997 Foo bar Baz is a valid copyright statement, or an invalid one. ___ / \ | C | 1997 Foo Bar Baz. No Rights Reserved. \___/ Except that No Rights Reserved would, in Pan-American-Copyright-Treaty cases, void your copyright. Yerp. But it's fun to say, no? ;-) Don Armstrong -- [Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it Operation Just Cause.] I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be Operation Just 'Cause? -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669cid=5664907 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpLtxRBE0Lxy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unable to contact author of DFSG FAQ
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, James Devenish wrote: I would like to contact the author of a web page entitled Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) FAQ The page is here: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the primarily author of the DFSG Faq, as listed at the end of the FAQ. I believe there to be some incorrect statements on that page Could you please elaborate? Please send or CC any replies directly to me, as I am not subscribed to the debian-legal list. Sorry for the intrusion. In the future, setting your Mail-Followup-To: is the right way to tell people to Cc: you. I've adjusted it accordingly. 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://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgprkdT8SHSJq.pgp Description: PGP signature
