Re: Another 2-clause BSD or a mistake?
Le Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:40:16PM -0700, Soren Stoutner a écrit : > License: BSD-custom-2-clause I would recommend a different abbreviation. BSD-custom-2-clause may give the false impression that this is a standard BSD 2-clause license where the copyright holders are not the regents of the university of California. BSD-custom-with-endorsement-restriction for instance will convey the message much more clearly and will stimulate the reader to pay attention to the details and consequences of this clause. Have a nice Sunday, Charles
Re: BSD license + should
Le Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 08:37:37PM +0100, Michael Banck a écrit : > > |4. Every use of the source code or binary form of the software should > |acknowledge the following publication: > | > | MolSpin - Flexible and Extensible General Spin Dynamics Software > | Claus Nielsen & Ilia A. Solov'yov > | Note: The paper is submitted to Journal of Chemical Physics (Special > | issue on spin chemistry, 2019). > can you suggest a rephrasing of this clause that would make it > DFSG-free, but be similar in spirit (i.e. nudge the user to cite the > package if they publish results based on its use)? Hi Michael, in the Primer3 software, the authors use the following words: “We request but do not require that use of this software be cited in publications as” [...] https://primer3.org/manual.html For Primer3 it is not exactly in the license, but I think that I have seen similar cases where it was. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)
Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Ian Jackson writes: > > > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and > > get them to fix the licence for this particular program. > > Preferably, convince the copyright holders that the reliable option is > an existing, well-understood, known free-software license such as Apache > License 2.0 or GNU GPL v3. Hi Ben, I think that the GNU all-permissive license is much more in the spirit of the FPL, provided that the lack of permission for modification was just an oversight. https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is, without any warranty. There is also the ISC license, that visually more similar, but has one more explicit requirement, which is to keep the copyright notice. Whether the users of the FPL find this important or not, I do not know... http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/ Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles
Re: Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?
> Eriberto Mota writes: > > > However, I will wait more opinions before submit a package to Debian. Le Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:33:02AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > Don't (only) wait for them here. I would advise you to ask the people > distributing the work what they think the copyright status of the work > is. Hi all, I am not entirely sure if it will be constructive, but in doubt, it might be also preferable to get the opinion from those whom the data was stolen, even if it not copyrightable. For instance, they may advise on how to use (or not!) their name in the package description, etc. Have a nice day, -- Charles
Re: Inclusion of PDF with CC Attr 3.0 license
Le Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:38:06PM -0700, Walter Landry a écrit : > Ian Jackson wrote: > > My personal view is that there would be no problem shipping the PDF, > > even though Debian's users would have no practical ability to modify > > this PDF. Making a modified version of a scientific paper like this > > one is neither useful, nor, unless especial care is taken, ethical. > > As someone who reads and writes papers, this is not true. Reusing > figures for talks and other papers is immensely useful. Copying the > LaTeX for an equation can also be quite helpful. This paper has both > of these elements. It is not like it is hard to add the attribution > required by the license. Hi all definitely, when the source is LaTeX, it is tempting to ask the authors or the publisher if they can provide it. Indeed, the document discussed here was produced from a latex source. pdfinfo gmd-7-225-2014.pdf Title: Subject: Keywords: Author: Creator:copernicus.cls Producer: pdfeTeX-1.303 CreationDate: Wed Jan 29 10:06:49 2014 Tagged: no UserProperties: no Suspects: no Form: none JavaScript: no Pages: 17 Encrypted: no Page size: 595.276 x 785.197 pts Page rot: 0 File size: 1329711 bytes Optimized: no PDF version:1.4 But let's also consider the extra work demanded to the authors and package maintainers. In some case, perhaps quite frequently, the final action taken will be that the package maintainer will remove the PDF from the package, because the author and the publisher will favour the solution that is zero work to them. But I would also argue, it is zero gain for the user. These PDFs are available on line, so deleting them puts no pressure on the ecosystem to force the authors to request that the publisher share their build system and then integrate them in their sofware package. So my personal point of view is that shipping the PDF in the source package is harmless, shipping it in a binary package is close to useless, and we should let the package maintainer chose the solution that he finds most suitable. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: Are there any stats of reasons given for rejections of package to the Package archive ?
Hi Shirish, in complement to Paul's answer, I would like to mention the peer-review process that I outlined in the Debian wiki: <https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview>. While it never got traction, you are free to try it if you like. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: Is possible relicense from GPL to BSD?
Le Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:34:06PM -0300, Eriberto Mota a écrit : > > The distorm3 upstream relicensed the source code from GPL3+ to > BSD-4-Clause. I think it is wrong but I didn't found references about > it. So, I need opinions about this issue. Hi Eriberto, if the distorm3 upstream developer fully holds the copyright on the software, then he can relicense as he wishes. However, BSD-4-Clause is a poor choice, since it is not compatible with the GPL, which can cause trouble to GPL-licensed projects using the distorm3 source code and following its updates. Maybe you can suggest to the author to switch to a GPL-compatible version of the BSD license ? I think that he may have picked the 4-clause version only by inadvertance. For instance, in the setup.py file, he declares "License :: OSI Approved :: BSD License", however if one looks at the licenses on the OSI website, the 4-clause BSD is not there. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself
Le Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 03:32:01PM +, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit : > > Still, I think the way the R project distributes MIT-licensed stuff is > not ok. Hi Mattia, the R packages distributed on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) are uploaded there by their own authors, therefore I think that even if the MIT license text is actually missing from the packages, there is no problem that CRAN distributes them. Also, please note that R ships a copy of the MIT license; in Debian it is in `/usr/share/R/share/licenses/MIT`. So R users have all the information they need. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: Missing license text in upstream packages
Le Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:00:14PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > The file `pqueue.cabal' (which the git records also show was written > by the author and copyrightholder) clearly specifies `BSD3'. Thanks Ian. On top of this, Haskell packages in the Hackage repository are required to be open source, and these requirements point at the syntax of .cabal files, which points at OSI's reference template. https://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-3-clause from http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Cabal-1.22.8.0/docs/Distribution-License.html from http://hackage.haskell.org/upload So the state of pqueue is very clear. Of course, a pull request to brush up the LICENCE file might be appreciated by the author(s) anyway. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Jerome BENOIT writes: > > > On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: > > > That licence is fine. > > > > > So now step forward in peace. > > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in > ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment. Hi Ben, this ad-hoc license is obviously not of the same quality as some general license written with lawyer advice, but I think that the missing explicit permission is a honest imperfection, especially that the software has already been redistributed for years, and that its relicensing was explicitely done to further facilitate the redistribution and incorporation in larger works. The license that we are discussing allows redistribution, and one person receiving the sources will receive them with a copy of the license, so the author probably considers it obvious that the recipient can use the software under that license, and that this does not have to be explicitely written. In my opinion, this software is DFSG-free, even if its license text could be improved or replaced by a more general, frequently used and well-understood license Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org
Le Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:49:51PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger a écrit : > > In order to improve the situation and make this software available to a > broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from > scratch: the so called 'Convertible Free Software License'. It shall give > the group of main contributors the additional right to re-license like that > is the case for the various BSD licenses. Organizations or people who have > not contributed to the development on the other hand will be given no such > additional right. Dear Elmar, I just wanted to add to the advice of not writing new licenses, that part of the problem that you are trying to address can be solved by requiring a contributor agreement before merging contributions into your software's main line. See for instance <https://owncloud.org/contribute/agreement/>. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries
> Rytis writes: > > > US Goverment public domain issue has been discussed a few times in this > > mailing list [1]. According to the interpretation by [2], this would > > fall into public domain abroad as well and second part of the above > > licence snippet may be unenforceable. Le Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 07:02:04PM +0100, Hendrik Weimer a écrit : > > Unfortunately, this interpretation is wrong. I wrote about this some > time ago when there was yet another discusion on debian-legal: > <http://quantenblog.net/free-software/us-copyright-international> > In my opinion, such software should not be distributed by Debian > because it puts mirror operators located outside of the US at risk. Hi Hendrik, so you wrote on your blog six years ago that distributing works done by US government institutions is "a trap". Do you have concrete examples of cases where people fell in that trap and got hurt since then ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:00:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the 2nd of July I got via Neil a message on this topic from SFLC.
>>>>>> IIRC we were planning to publish it, or a synopsis, or something ?
>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> AIUI, yes. FTP Masters?
>>> 2015. dec. 3. 22:20 ezt írta ("Ferenc Kovacs" ):
>>>>
>>>> any update on this?
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>> Bump
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> (bump)
Le Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:31:07PM +0100, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
>
> any progress on this?
> I starting to feel lonely here.
Hi Ferenc,
happy new year !
... you are not alone :) don't give up ! Sometimes things are not quick in
Debian ...
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?
Le Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 06:23:50PM -0200, Eriberto Mota a écrit : > > When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full > revision in source code and I found two doubtful situations for me. > > The first issue is the license used by mpage: > > * Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim > * copies of this document as received, in any medium, provided > * that this copyright notice is preserved, and that the > * distributor grants the recipient permission for further > * redistribution as permitted by this notice. > > IMO, this license doesn't allow modify the source code. So, this > license is inadequate. > > The second issue is the license of the Contrib/mfix/test.ps file: > > % Copyright (c) 1986-89, ArborText, Inc. > % Permission to copy is granted so long as the PostScript code > % is not resold or used in a commercial product. Hi Eriberto, just a side comment since you already had a lot of good answers. When encountering strange license terms, I always look for them in codesearch.debian.net. It can either suggest that the license is not problematic (for instance if it is found in a large number of high-profile packages), or it gives the opportunity to correct the error archive-wide. In the case of mpage, the lines "distributor grants the recipient permission for further" and "Permission to copy is granted so long as the PostScript code" are not found in any other package; good ! Cheers, Charles -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: Source files
Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should > *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most > commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one found > in the GNU GPL license. Hi Francesco and everybody, sorry for drifting that thread further... I can not help adding that, the world being in perpetual change, the definition of source will one day become an open question again. My favorite guess is that at some point, it will be argued that the commit messages and the revisions of a file are part the source, since inspecting them is part of the "preferred" way to modify the file. But we are not there yet... Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: Source files
> Charles Plessy writes: > > > > Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not > > matter anymore. Le Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > Why not? If I take the GPL definition, the question is not whether it is > actual (and, BTW, also not whether it is automatically generated) but > what "is preferred" (holy passive) for modification. Yes, that what I wanted to mean :) To me, it looks like the file that we are discussing is the preferred form for modification. -- Charles
Re: Source files
Le Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:49:03AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > For one of my packages (python-astropy), I got a Lintian error that it > would contain a non-source file jquery.dataTables.js. This is mainly > discussed in a bug report > > https://bugs.debian.org/798900 > > however it seems that the problem is more general. The python-astropy > package indeed contains a file jquery.dataTables.js, which for me, > however, looks like a good source: It is well readable, it contains > comments, etc.: > > https://sources.debian.net/src/python-astropy/1.0.4-1/astropy/extern/js/jquery.dataTables.js/ > > However, it contains one line > > /*globals $, jQuery,define,_fnExternApiFunc,[...] > > which is ~1400 characters long and may be automatically inserted. This > line is now taken by lintian as indication that the file is not a source > file. Aside from the question whether this heuristics is too simple, I > am now curious on how a "source" is defined in the Debian context. Is it > f.e. required that every single character was inserted manually? Or that > at least some of the content was created manually? Hi Ole, looking at the upstream work on GitHub (https://github.com/DataTables/DataTablesSrc), I see that the long line is changed from time to time in commits that change other lines as well. Therefore, it does not look like jquery.dataTables.js is an autogenerated file. Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not matter anymore. By all means, the file is regularly edited like any as a source file. And by the way, while anybody is free to disbelieve that a file is a real source file, the only persons whose judgement really matter on that subject are the members of the FTP team. So you are free to disagree with random bug reporters, and they are free to escalate it if they are not convinced by your arguments, but in the meantime, Debian's point of view is that the file is source unless the contrary has been demonstrated, given that it has passed the screening of the FTP team when it entered our archive. You can also add Lintian overrides if the Lintian maintainers are uncooperative. Thanks for your hard work, and have a nice day, Charles Plessy -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License ("AFL") v3.0
Le Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> Hello debian-legal regulars,
> I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
> Academic Free License ("AFL") v3.0.
Hi Francesco,
I think that there is a broad consensus to accept the AFL as Free license,
in Debian, the OSI, Fedora, the FSF, etc.
Its wording is often poorly chosen, but I think that the consensus is to
conclude in favor of the Free interpretation.
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.
- regarding points 5) and 9), the FSF notes that the AFL has clause similar to
one of
the Open Software License that "requires distributors to try to obtain
explicit
assent to the license"
(<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OSLRant>).
This is easy to infringe, but this is not forbidden by the DFSG (which is why
we tolerate advertisement clauses, which are also easy to infringe).
- The "Attribution Notice" sounds a bit like an invariant section, but it is
also
very similar to the NOTICE file from the Apache License, which is Free.
Altogether, I think that #689919 should stay closed, although it would be great
of course if the Subversion authors would manage to elimiate this license from
their sources, because this license is not a good example to follow.
Have a nice day,
Charles
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150610234107.gd15...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DFSG-ness of two
Le Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : > > > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source > > > > > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You > > > > > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may > > > > > > > -not be charged seperatly. > > > > The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much > > freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first > > sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree > > that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. > > The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the > meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source > sold to other developers. That is a different interpretation than mine, and it might be useful to confirm with the original author if this is what he intended. In any case, Debian already redistributes software licensed under these terms in fpc_2.6.4+dfsg-5/fpcsrc/packages/regexpr/src/regexpr.pas and lazarus_1.2.4+dfsg2-1/components/synedit/synregexpr.pas (thanks, codesearch.debian.net), so either this was overlooked, or the interpretation taken by the FTP team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced by the first. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150531013253.ga11...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DFSG-ness of two
> > Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source > > > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You > > > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may > > > > > -not be charged seperatly. > > > > > > But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for > > > profit to other developers. > On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > > > > as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of > > the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. > > > > > Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in > > Original > > > or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:58:06AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : > > The second sentence is similar to the Open Font License, but I was > talking about the first sentence. Hi again, The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150531000831.ga26...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DFSG-ness of two
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may > > > -not be charged seperatly. > > > > This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be > > sold as part of a commercial package. Hence, it could perhaps be > > considered to meet DFSG#1. > > But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for > profit to other developers. Hi Riley, as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. > Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original > or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150530014604.gf4...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: GPL "+" question
Le Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my > packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a > directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark > Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel > Bertin) and released in the package under GPL-3+. > > debian/copyright currently mentions only GPL-3+ for the whole package. > > The ftp-master now asked me to add GPL-2+ for these files to > debian/copyright. But I think that this would be wrong, since the files > under src/wcs are not distributable under GPL-2+ (because they contain > GPL-3+ code from Emmanuel Bertin). > > Do I miss an important point here? Hi Ole, I am also surprised by this request (isn't there a typo with a "L" missing in front of "GPL-2+" ?). The README in src/wcs contains: > This directory contains a modified version of the WCSlib V2.2 library by Mark > Calabretta , released under the GNU Lesser General > Public License. The original version was downloaded from > ftp://ftp.cv.nrao.edu/fits/src/wcs/. See > http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/mcalabre/WCS/wcslib for more details. Here, the author of missfits says that he modified the copy of the WCSlib that he redistributes with the sources of missfits. In addition, he added a GPLv3+ header on top of each file. Unfortunately, WCSlib version 2.2 is so old that I could not find a pristine copy on the Internet to confirm that each file was really modified. If it were me, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the upstream author of missfits, and trust him that if he added a GPLv3+ header, it is because he modified the files, as he says in the README. In that case, the license to be indicated in debian/copyright should be GPLv3+. Have a nice week-end, Charles -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150529231946.gd4...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Makefile.in.in license
Le Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 07:15:11AM +1100, Riley Baird a écrit : > > I have no idea how to interpret the below license: > > This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can > be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License > but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality. > Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available. > > I found this license while I was writing the d/copyright for the > "granule" package[1], but it's also in the gtk+2.0 package[2]. Hi Riley, a quick search trough the other source packages in Debian shows that this file is present in many of them. http://codesearch.debian.net/results/file%20file%20be%20copied/ Therefore, empirically it is DFSG-free. My impression about this license is that it might be intended as a joke. So if the copyright holder declines to relicense, you can probably ignore the problem. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150130232546.gc14...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Python library under permissive GPL-compatible license optionally using GPL library
Hi Yaroslav, Le Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:07:41PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit : > > If we have a library X in Python, released under some GPL-compatible > license (e.g. BSD-3 or Expat) and then using (optionally) some GPL code > (at run time) provided by another library Y -- what are the implications? > Am I wrong on any of the following statements > > - the project X codebase doesn't have to be relicensed to GPL Right > - the project X can use project Y (since under GPL compatible license) Right. Much of the GPL is about redistribution, not use. > - It is only at 'run time' when actual linking to the library Y happens, > so project must comply with GPL but whose responsibility it is then > and what needs to be enforced? > > - original distributor of X must have provided all the sources with > modifications? But it was user's decision to use GPL'ed library If the distributor of X distributes only X and asks the users to do all the extra work, then it does not have to redistribute the sources of Y. > - or user must somehow make sure he has the sources... (sounds > dubious) Indeed. > - is mere ability to be used with GPL licensed library Y makes > distributors of code of X required to comply with GPL? (e.g. provide > modified sources) No, but the distributors of X would start to have obligations if they would distribute X and Y together, for instance as a binary form. In the case of Debian, since our archive contains the source packages, package-X can depend on package-Y or contain code derived from package-Y without needing extra work on the redistribution. (Of course, the maintainer of package-X has to ensure that liceses are compatible). > [1] http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/nipy-devel/2014-December/010707.html If a third party download X and Y from their original distributors, and redistribute the combination as binary code without the source, then they will violate the GPL. Thus, even if X is their main interst, if they download Y because X needs it, they need to read Y's license. If X provides some download scripts for Y, it would be kind to write somewhere in the documentation that Y is GPL-licensed. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213001602.gc26...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: License of binary packages
Le Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 05:35:00PM +0100, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > I asked this question already some months ago in debian-mentors, but > didn't get an answer: > > How is the license of a binary Debian package determined? > > The file debian/copyright only contains the license of the sources; > however the binary license may differ -- f.e. when a BSD source is > linked to a GPL library. Also there is usually more than one license > used in the sources. Hi Ole, in some packages I maintain, I put such information in the debian/copyright file (in the License field of the header, as I am using the machine-readable format). However, it is not canonical, nor automated. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141113223947.ga23...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Le Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 06:50:49PM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit : > > [ Remainder: this thread is about a file whose copyright/licensing > statement is of the form: > > # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... > # Copyright (C) 2000 ... > # > # This program is in the public domain. > > It has been established by the mavens from this list that the > copyright statements contradict the "public domain" assertion, and > that simply stating "This program is in the public domain" is not > enough to make it so in general. As a consequence, I am trying to have > the file relicensed under a proper license such as BSD-2 or BSD-3. I > have also taken note of the suggestions given here about the Apache > Software Foundation License 2.0 (which I am still considering) and the > CC-0, thank you. ] > > Sorry for the little delay. I have recently tried to contact the person > who is most likely, appart from me, to legitimately own some copyright > over the file in question in this thread, namely demo.py from > pythondialog (python-dialog in Debian). This person has been friendly in > the past, there is no problem on this side, however time is pressing > because of the imminent freeze of jessie and I am therefore considering > the other alternative. Hello Florent, you can decouple the two issues: - The package is totally redistributable in Debian as it is, you do not need to relicense the files to update to the new upstream release. - You can work on the resolving the apparent contradiction at the pace you want, you can even consider it a wishlist, “patch welcome” issue only. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141011003846.ga14...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Le Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:11AM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit : > > 1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement: > > # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... > # Copyright (C) 2000 ... > # > # This program is in the public domain. > >but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence of copyright... >right? Would it be better to replace this with: > > # Contributors: 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ... > # 2000 ... > # > # This program is in the public domain. > >? > > 2. With the following stanza in debian/copyright (DEP-5): > > Files: examples/* > License: public-domain > >I get two lintian warnings, the first of which being >missing-field-in-dep5-copyright for the Copyright field IIRC, and the >second one being 'missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright >public-domain'. Dear Florent, for the first point, please do not modify the upstream copyright statements unless you have the permission from the authors: it is more likely to create new confusions than to clarify the situation. For the entry in the machine-readable copyright file, since the information available suggests that the authors claim a copyright, I would just consider that “This program is in the public domain.” is the license of the file: Files: examples/* Copyright: (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 author A (C) 2000 author B License: says-public-domain This program is in the public domain. Not elegant, but accurate. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140916100412.gc2...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Question about a "custom" license from dictconfig
Le Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 03:44:02PM +0100, MJ Ray a écrit : > Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: > > I encountered this license while packaging (as in this file [1]). My > > questions is, what type of license is it, and is it DFSG compatible ? > > > > Please CC me, I am not on the list. > > > > [1] > > https://bitbucket.org/vinay.sajip/dictconfig/raw/53b3c32dea4694cd3fb2f14b3159d66d3da10bc0/src/dictconfig.py > > This looks close enough to MIT/Expat-style licensing that most of it > seems to meet the DFSG. > > The only thing I'm not sure about is whether it's OK for other people > also called "Vinay Sajip" to release changes under their own name. > Anyone know? If not, then it fails DFSG. Hello everybody, non-advertisement clauses are very frequent and I have not seen that they cause a problem. Also, the license in question is already present in a large number of files in Debian. http://codesearch.debian.net/search?prev=&q=the+name+of+Vinay+Sajip Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140826211059.ga30...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Le Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:43:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the > > debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the > > license GPL-3+ or not? > > No, it is not a derivative work. (Except for debian/patches/ if you > use that, but that's presumably not what you mean.) Yes, sorry for not being clear: by « if combined » I meant debian/patches. I agree with Ian that a permissive license is the most helpful in general. For the patches to upstream, while a permissive license will always be compatible, it may be better to use the same license as upstream, to simplify their work. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140821220807.ga...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Le Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:15:46AM -0300, Eriberto Mota a écrit : > > I have a doubt about a situation. > > The upstream source code is GPL3+. Packaging is a derivative work and > I think that it must be GPL. So, GPL-3+, right? Or can the debian/* be > GPL-2+? Dear Eriberto, if your packaging work contains copyrightable parts (note that some typical files in debian directories are definitely trivial and therefore non-copyrightable), then their license need to be compatible with the upstream sources if they are combined in the same work. The GPL-2+ is compatible with the GPL-3+, because the “+” means “or (at your option) any later version”. Without that clause, the GPLv3 and the GPLv2 are not compatible. Note that the importance is compatibility. You can definitely chose a more permissive license, like CC0, MIT, etc. if you wish so. Also, for works that are not combined with upstream sources (like a manual page written from scratch for instance), you can chose any Free license you like. But I think that it is best practice to pick the same license as the upstream work in such cases, so that you have better chances to contribute it upstream instead of keeping it as a Debian-only modification. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140819214405.gb13...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Le Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 08:10:49AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > > I think that it is important that a few of the ‘some members’ would identify > themselves in support for that request, and explain what they would do if the > worries expressed below turned out to be true. Sorry for the extra mail; I just would like to clarify that by “Developers in support”, I mean: “Developers who think that the PHP license may be problematic”, not “Developers who think that calling lawyers will be an efficient mean to resolve the disagreements”. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140801235712.gb8...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Le Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:59:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > Draft question for SFLC: > > > Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP > licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by relevant > upstreams. We would like some advice. Hello Ian and everybody, I think that it is important that a few of the ‘some members’ would identify themselves in support for that request, and explain what they would do if the worries expressed below turned out to be true. Among the Debian Developers, some have more stakes in the packages than others. Members of the FTP team may remove the packages or ask them to move to non-free; members of the release team can remove them from Stable and Testing; members from the security team can refuse to support the packages; the maintainers of the packages can orphan or abandon them. Lastly, any Debian Developer can start a General Resolution. If the only support for contacting lawyers comes from Developers who have the least stakes in the question (GR only), then we should really consider if the work that we are about to ask to the lawyers will be wasted in the trash bin instead of being seriously considered. Here are two other coments on the text itself. > Q4. Does the fact that the PHP licence conditions about the use of the >PHP name are contained in the actual copyright licence, rather than >in a separate trademark licence, significantly increase the risks >we would face if we had a disagreement with upstream about our >modifications (or our failure to seek approval) ? Note that PHP does not hold a trademark on the PHP name and therefore can not grant a trademark license. > Sadly we must consider in this context the fact that it does happen - > thankfully rarely - that an upstream takes offence to something Debian > does and attempts to revoke or renounce the licence or claim that the > licence forbids. It is important to us that we can still, under such > conditions, continue to distribute the software (perhaps under a > different name), since we may have come to rely on it. It is important to note that clarifications on the PHP license have already been given by PHP developers. The question is then if they are free to revert their clarifications and use a new interpretation of their license to force Debian to stop distributing or modifying PHP and its modules. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140801231037.ga8...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Le Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 02:38:58PM +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : > > That, too. But AIUI that licence also forbids us from shipping > a modified version of PHP without rebranding (like Firefox(tm)). I think that we are ridiculing ourselves by ignoring the arguments that have been given to us by the PHP developers in the past. See, we are getting famous in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP_License#Debian_packaging_controversy Debian maintainers have had a long-standing discussion (since at least 2005) about the validity of the PHP license.[4] Expressed concerns include that the license "contains statements about the software it covers that are specific to distributing PHP itself", which, for other software than PHP itself therefore would be "false statements". I think that the situation is different: - It has been proposed by a developer to remove PHP modules licensed under the PHP license, in application of a policy that had been neglected for years. This proposition was eventually represented by release-critical bugs. - For some PHP modules, the bugs have been closed, and there was no further reaction. - In the meantime the usual vocal people sending the majority of emails on our mailing lists are giving the impression that removing PHP modules is a position of Debian as a whole, while it is definitely not. This drama can be ended by closing the remaining bugs and going back to work. This has been done for packages that some people care most, like php-memcached, and could be done for other packages. When things have cooled down, it can be proposed to correct the REJECT-FAQ according to current practice of accepting PHP-licensed code. Back to the question of rebranding, the PHP developers have already explained that because PHP is a three-letter word, they are not in a position to protect their name with a trademark. Therefore, they do it with a license. We can not take Mate and distribute it as “Gnome Plus”. We can not take a fork of PHP and call it “BetterPhp”. People can not take a Debian CD, add non-free software, and sell it as “Debian Enhanced”. We and other protect our names, and PHP does it too. I do not see a problem. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140730230300.gb24...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license
Le Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 04:47:34PM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit : > > from the replies on the debian mailing lists it seems that this decision on > dropping any project using the php license distributed outside of php-src > is controversial to say the least. Hello Ferenc, from an outsider point of view (I do not maintain PHP packages in Debian), my impresssion is also that the removal of PHP packages is controversial. I guess you also saw the LWN article here: http://lwn.net/Articles/604630/ The good news is that things can resolve without formal decision: the immediate cause for removing some PHP packages from our Testing distribution (that represents our future release, not the Debian archive as a whole) is that bugs of severity serious were filed against them to represent the licensing question. If one closes these bugs or downgrade their severity, then the packages automatically (modulo a small delay) become part of Testing again. This already has been done for packages such as php-memcached, and could be done for others. Thank you for your patience ! -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140729223824.gc31...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DEP-5 copyright names on a single line
Le Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:10:08PM +0200, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > In the DEP-5 doc > > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#copyright-field > > "Any formatting is permitted" > > "years of publication for one copyright holder may be gathered together" > > One thing is not mentioned explicitly: can multiple names be on the same > line if the years are the same? > > E.g. > > https://github.com/arcticwaters/weupnp/commit/0d1f840b5cb646fb06f139462a5cf51a1fb4b97d > > contains this: > > Copyright: 2008-2014, Alessandro Bahgat Shehata, Daniele Castagna > > or is it mandatory to have one line per copyright holder? Hi Daniel, the machine-readable format does not forbid to collate everything on one line. Especially, for the package where you take the example, there are already upstream files where the two holders are on the same line of a copyright statement, so there is no problem at all. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140604121619.ga21...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Need more (legal) information
Le Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:06:53PM +0100, Thibaut Varène a écrit : > > The kanjidic documentation states (emphasis is mine): > > > The following people have granted permission for material for which they > > hold copyright to be included in the files, _and distributed under the > > above conditions_, while retaining their copyright over that material: > > > > Jack HALPERN: The SKIP codes in the KANJIDIC file. > > As I understand this, kanjidic and the SKIP codes it embeds are freely > redistributable under the licensing terms of kanjidic. > > That other licensing provisions for the SKIP codes may be made in other use > cases (as detailed in Appendix F of the same document) seems quite irrelevant > to me: you are questioning the DFSG-compliance of kanjidic (and by extension > the package that includes it: tagainijisho) and as far as I can see, the > whole content of the file `tagainijisho-[version > number]/3rdparty/kanjidic2.xml', including the SKIP codes, are covered by the > license stated at the top of the file: CC-BY-SA, which is DFSG-compliant. Hi Thibaut, looking at the link you sent, it seems that the “above conditions” are “KANJIDIC can be freely used provided satisfactory acknowledgement is made, and a number of other conditions are met”, which is quite vague. In addition, just below the part that you cited (“Jack HALPERN: The SKIP codes in the KANJIDIC file.”), there is “With regard to the SKIP codes, Mr Halpern draws your attention to the statement he has prepared on the matter, which is included at Appendix F.” To me, it appears that Appendix F, which has non-Free clauses, applies. Have you tried to contact the authors of KANJIDIC ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140325131358.ga7...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Creative Commons 4.0 licenses published
Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : > On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote: > > > Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead: > > This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they > just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the > current CC0 version is *explicitly* discouraged for use > with software. Hi Thorsten, Can you share a link to such a recommendation with a reasonable explanation ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131128122720.ga3...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: CC0 and authors' names in Copyright field
Le Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:49:46AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci a écrit : > > Could the copyright-format page [1] be changed to state more > explicitly that the Copyright field should list the names of the > authors even in the case of public domain works (or works licensed > via CC0)? I would like to file a bug report but I do not see which > package I should use for that. > > [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Hi, the machine-readable specification is contained in the debian-policy package, and there is already a bug opened on that matter. http://bugs.debian.org/694883 Le Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:52:02AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci a écrit : > > Solution 2 (names in the Copyright field): > > > Files: * > Copyright: Dedicated to the public domain (CC) by John Doe > License: CC0 > > License: CC0 > Creative Commons Legal Code > [... rest of the CC0 text ...] > > > Or is there an even better third solution? Solution 2 is fine; "Copyright: [year] John Doe" would be enough as well. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131003000653.ga23...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: CC0 and authors' names in Copyright field
> Gioele Barabucci writes: > > > What should the Copyright field contain for packages dedicated to the > > public domain with CC0? Le Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:25:48AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > DEP 5 http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/> is Debian's standard for > the ‘debian/copyright’ content. Hello Ben and Gioele, Just to clarify, the “machine readable debian/copyright file” specification, developped as “DEP 5”, is a stardard, but its use is not mandatory. The debian/copyright can also be written free-form, or following other formats (if any) that preserve a good human-readability. Currently, the canonical URL for the standard is <http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/>. As for CC0, as Ben explained, it is a license, and the simplest is to list the copyright holders as for other licenses. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131001234021.gb30...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
Le Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:18:58AM -0400, Miles Lubin a écrit : > > Here's the issue: > - Since the last upload, upstream has switched from the CPL (Common > Public License) to the EPL (Eclipse Public License). > - The debian directory had no explicit license mentioned in the > copyright file. It was pointed out by Paul Tagliamonte that the > previous maintainer(s) must agree to the change in license. > - Soeren Sonnenburg, the previous maintainer, has insisted that his > work be licensed under GPLv3 exclusively. > - EPL and GPLv3 are incompatible > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License), but the extent > to which they are incompatible is not clear to me. Hi Miles, Soeren and everybody, if Soeren did not indicate a license for his work in the Debian directory (to the extent that it is copyrightable), I think that the general assumption that it is under the same license as the Upstream work, in particular for the patches (which is why there is no License field in DEP 3, the Patch Tagging Guidelines). The CPL is also listed as incompatible with the GPL on FSF's website, so the patches definitely were not GPL-licensed. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CommonPublicLicense10 For the manpage: it does not contain a copyright or a license statement, and the Debian copyright file mentions If not stated otherwise Copyright: (C) 2000-2003, 2005-2008 International Business Machines Corporation and others. License: Common Public License Version 1.0 In any case, it would be good to submit the manpage Upstream, and the most cooperative way would be to use the same license as Upstream. Integrating the manpage upstream reduces the packager's load, and shares the work beyond Debian. Soeren, are you sure you would like this manpage to be licensed under terms that may be not welcome Upstream ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130925225037.ga3...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: ODbL / DbCL licenses: not DFSG compliant?
Le Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Nick Oosterhof a écrit : > > are the Open Database License (ODbL) [1] and Database Contents License (DbCL) > DSFG [2] compliant? It seems they are not, but I would like to make sure. > > Specifically I found an earlier thread [3] where it was argued that section > 4.6 of the ODbL [1] makes it non-compliant (I presume with DSFG 1), as this > section reads: > > "Access to Derivative Databases. If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or > a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients > of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form > of: > > a. The entire Derivative Database; or > > b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the > method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), > including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between > the Database and the Derivative Database. > > The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.) must be > available at no more than a reasonable production cost for physical > distributions and free of charge if distributed over the internet." > > which would restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced > Work for significant (higher than reasonable production) cost. > > Is that a reasonable interpretation? Dear Nick, in case of use for profit, the section 4.6 requires that the customer can access to what the DFSG call "source code" or "patch files", with no unreasonable additional cost. It therefore does not restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced Work for significant cost. This is similar to the requirements for conveying non-source forms in the GPL and the AGPL, which are accepted as Free by Debian. I have not studied the other clauses of the ODbL, but section 4.6 therefore does not seem to make it non-free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130922094910.ga1...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: redistributability of two software pieces in non-free
Le Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0200, Johannes Schauer a écrit : > > here the relevant parts of the copyright of a piece of software which is > necessary for vmd, a molecular visualization program: > > --%<--- […] > * 3) Other interested research groups will be redirected > * to the author. The user will not redistribute the code outside > * his immediate research group. Dear Johannes, I think that this clause forbids the redistribution by Debian. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130915003833.ga5...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:06:01AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf a écrit : > > Excess repetition makes many of us regulars pay less attention to the > topics. I'll mention this specific example, trying not to make it into > an ad-hominem: Francesco has a *great* license comprehension and > comparison skill, much greater than mine, and I appreciate reading his > messages when I am starting, or have time, or am in a good mood. But I > know there is a very high probability his mails will include a "Well, > but remember I don't think any CC licenses are as good as GPLv2!" > paragraph. > > So, Francesco: I will also tune in with Steve's request. I think your > point would be better driven if not constantly repeated. And you would > find this crowd much more likely to accept your ideas. Hello everybody, I think that this discussion is going completely out of proportions. Francesco always makes sure that his replies contain an informative answer. In the last part of his emails, he adds his point of view in a way that it is very clear that it is not Debian's. People who already read it can easily skip it, just like email signatures. If Debian bans Francesco from this list, I will fee very ashamed of us. Also, with such a low threshold for banning people who are polite, precise, who do not engage into flamewars, and never show aggressivity, we will set the stage for massive purge and witch-hunting, because of many people are within the treshold. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130903062927.gc19...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
Le Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 11:39:16AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit : > > Perhaps you'd be interested in helping: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/01/msg00043.html I can not write your explanations for you, sorry. I have read the diff between the versions 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 mutiple times, and I have not found anything convincing that would support the current situation of rejecting 2.0 and accepting 3.0. Note that I already asked. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/02/msg00080.html I think that your call for help here is upside-down: we can spend years documenting rare licenses where it is obvious that they do not fit the DFSG. This will not make a significant difference. What will be much more helpful would be to have a clear documentation the frequently problematic cases, with the pros and cons, and the final decision taken. Again, it is your decision, which I do not understand, so I can not write the explanation for it. But I would be grateful if you did. It does not need to be long: there is at least one sentence in CC 2.0 licenses, that has been changed in CC 3.0 licences to make them Free. The reason I ask with so much insistance is that I really feel like an idiot when I contact upstream to ask them to relicense works, and I am not able to explain why it matters. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130901164319.gc8...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
Le Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 05:54:46PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit : > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > CC licenses may be "perfectly fine" in *your* opinion. > > Apparently in many other people's opinion, too. > > But they are not in *my* opinion. > > Sorry, this was not *my* opinion, it was *Debian*'s opinion. This *is* > debian-legal, isn't it? Hi Paul, Frankly speaking, "Debian's opinion" on the CC licenses does not exist. There is the empirical observation that this or that CC license is accepted or rejected from our archive, with both false positives and false negatives, and there is not any document that presents logically and clearly the facts behind the FTP team's choice of accepting version 3.0 and rejecting older versions. Given that the difference between the accepted and rejected license is so thin, I think that we can not blame people being unsatisfied in one direction or the other and telling it repeatedly their opinion on that matter. If you do not like this, please write a convincing and authoritative explanation of "Debian's opinion", that will close the debate. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130831143031.ga8...@falafel.plessy.net
FWD: SPDX Technical team invites your participation!
Hello everybody, for those interested in the subject: SPDX (Software Package Data Exchange, http://spdx.org) is calling for contributions for their 2.0 version. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy, Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan - Forwarded message - Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:57:39 + Subject: SPDX Technical team invites your participation! Hello SPDX'ers: Just a quick blast to the larger SPDX mailing list to update you on the goings-on of the Technical team and invite your participation. For a while now SPDX 1.1 has been out in the field, and over the past 6 months or more the Tech team has been studying the areas of improvement to target for an SPDX 2.0 specification. There have also been contributions to the set of tools around SPDX, which will be presented at the Linux Collaboration Summit next month. Regarding SPDX 2.0 we received tremendous industry and open source community input in the form of Use Cases and conceptual model proposals. A big thanks to all who contributed their time and ideas to that exercise! Those Use Cases have given us a valuable point of reference for the areas where the SPDX 1.1 model could be expanded to support greater adoption. More recently we are transitioning from conceptual modeling discussions / proposals into concrete proposals and we would welcome your involvement. An example of some proposals under consideration for 2.0: - exactly how a 'later' SPDX document references earlier SPDX documents to reuse/add/subtract/amend data - how to indicate Usage of individual files (as this may relate to obligations...) - how to indicate that a binary was derived from sources (and therefore license discoveries/assertions about the source may apply to the binary) - how to indicate that a snippet within a file is derived from another file and what licensing info applies to the snippet If you would like to help steer the technical proposals and decisions, please feel free to chime in on the spdx-t...@spdx.org<mailto:spdx-t...@spdx.org> mailing list and join our weekly concalls Tuesdays 2pm Eastern time. See http://spdx.org/content/participation-guidelines-sign-0 for details Thanks! - Bill [cid:image001.gif@01CC836A.D8B42B40] Bill Schineller Senior Director, KnowledgeBase Black Duck Software, Inc. 8 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 E: bschinel...@blackducksoftware.com<mailto:kgold...@blackducksoftware.com> T: 781/425-4405 ___ Spdx mailing list s...@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx - End forwarded message - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130320020435.ga30...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) > > > > I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages > > (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the > > comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in > > the binary package long descriptions, as well. Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler a écrit : > > I am not happy at all with cluttering the binary package description > with license blabla. I would do so only as last resort Dear Reinhard, Francesco and everybody, I think that the Debian copyright file of libav 6:9.1-1 is clear enough with its comment in the header, and that it is best to keep the license information out of the description of the package. Note that the machine-readable format also allows License fields in the header paragraph to give the license information for the package as a whole. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130114015538.gc5...@falafel.plessy.net
FWD: on the variability of BSD and MIT licenses
Dear all, there is an interesting email on the SPDX mailing list, distributing an article about the BSD and MIT license families. Here is a link to the page with the attached file. http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/2012-December/000785.html Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121227225634.gb14...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Open data french license
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:41:46 +0100 (CET) x.guim...@free.fr wrote: > > > > The complete text can be found here : > > > * Original text : > > > http://www.data.gouv.fr/Licence-Ouverte-Open-Licence > > > * English translation : > > > http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/4/37/99/26/licence/Licence-Ouverte-Open-Licence-ENG.pdf > You are free to re-use the « Information » : > > • To reproduce, copy, publish and transmit the « Information » ; > • To disseminate and redistribute the « Information » ; > • To adapt, modify, transform and extract from the « Information », >for instance to build upon it in order to create « Derivative >information » ; > • To exploit the « Information » commercially, for example, by >combining it with other « Information », or by including it in >your own product or application. Bonjour Xavier and everybody, I do not see the permission to disseminate modified informations. If this restriction is confirmed, then the license is not free from Debian's point of view. Bon week-end, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121221104042.gd30...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"
Le Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:17:15PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > Since one of the "standard short names" for the License field is > "public-domain", I thought that specifying > > Copyright: public-domain > License: public-domain >[explanation of why the files are in the public domain...] > > was awkward and redundant. > > Hence, I wondered what should be put in the Copyright field when the > License field says "public-domain"... > > > > > Inspecting Debian copyright files from > > svn://anonscm.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ I see that many chose > > contents such as "none", "nobody", "public-domain", "not relevant", etc, > > which > > I think are good enough, given that the content of the Copyright field is > > free-form. > > OK, so maybe > > Copyright: none > License: public-domain >[explanation of why the files are in the public domain...] > > is the way to go. > > I just wish that the 1.0 specification were more explicit on this > point... If you would like, you can open a wishlist bug, and if the specification is updated in the future (there is no timeline for this and my opinion is that currently it would be premature), this bug will remind us to consider adding a recommendation (and asking you at that time if you would like to summarise the contents of the Copyright field in files where License indicates public-domain). Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121201113439.ga...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"
Le Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > P.P.S.: I am not sure what you should write in the Copyright field for > the upstream files, but "(c) 1996-2012 by Thomas A. McGlynn" does not > look right, as long as the upstream work is really in the public domain > (which, as you probably know, means that the work is *not* subject to > copyright!)... > The machine-readable debian/copyright file format specification v1.0 > (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/) > is not too clear on this point, unfortunately... > Maybe you should ask on the debian-policy mailing list and suggest that > this topic should be clarified in the specification. Hi Francesco, the 1.0 specification mentions for the Copyright field: If a work has no copyright holder (i.e., it is in the public domain), that information should be recorded here. Inspecting Debian copyright files from svn://anonscm.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ I see that many chose contents such as "none", "nobody", "public-domain", "not relevant", etc, which I think are good enough, given that the content of the Copyright field is free-form. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121201014747.ga31...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Bug#681654: #681654 kstars-data-extra-tycho2: undistributable
Le Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:15:01AM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:02:13 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > > [...] > > Catalogues available at CDS contain scientific data distributed > > for free, for a scientific usage. > [...] > > Doesn't this fail DFSG#6 ? Hi, given that it comes from an email conversation and not a proper license, it is hard to decide if it has to be taken as a disclaimer or as a restriction. So if it is a serious concern, it means that a more formal clarification is needed. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121118110139.ga8...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Bug#681654: #681654 kstars-data-extra-tycho2: undistributable
> On Miércoles, 14 de noviembre de 2012 17:35:44 Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > > > > if > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681654#52 > > > > is correct and the issue is commercial use (and not nondistributability) > > how about just moving kstars-data-extra-tycho2 to non-free instead of > > having this bug delay wheezy release? You can always reintroduce it back > > to main if the issue is solved. Le Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:44:42PM +, Noel David Torres Taño a écrit : > I agree, iff debian-legal agrees so Hello everybody, Here is the statement in 681654#52 Catalogues available at CDS contain scientific data distributed for free, for a scientific usage. Companies including such data in their commercial products cannot charge their clients for the data. Furthermore, users must be informed of the origin of the data: this means an explicit reference to the service provided by the CDS and also to the original author(s) of each catalogue. For me, it looks reminescent of the SIL Open Font License, which states: The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. If one considers that in the statement in 681654#52, "cannot charge for the data" means the same as "not sold by themselves" in the OFL, then it would be consistent to keep kstars-data-extra-tycho2 in Debian, as SIL-OFL-licensed works are allowed. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121118000213.ga10...@plessy.org
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
Le Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:34:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > In the meanwhile, what I was proposing was that the licensing of the > Debian Open Use Logo should not create a deliberate incompatibility > with either the GPLv2 or the GPLv3. Hi Francesco, The Debian Open Use Logo without « Debian » is still distributed under a persmissive license on www.debian.org/logos, so anybody who worries about license incompatibilities can make a backup now, and redistribute it under its permissive license later if it looks useful. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012094424.ga30...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Bug#687693: ca-certificates: Cacert License is missing
Le Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:35:09PM -0500, Raphael Geissert a écrit : > Hi everyone, > > mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our > debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion. > > On Saturday 15 September 2012 03:15:10 mejiko wrote: > [...] > > ca-certificates packeages included Cacert Root certificates. > > This certificates licensed under Cacert Root Distribution License (RDL). > [...] > > http://www.cacert.org/policy/RootDistributionLicense.php > > https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-policy/2012-02/msg00031.html > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CACert_Root_Distribution_License > > TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to > distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca- > certificates, Fedora says it is non-free. > > What do the others think about it? > > To me, it doesn't just seem to be a (re-)distribution issue. Rather, the > need for an additional agreement with CAcert. Hello Raphael, could it be a very strangely phrased disclaimer of warranty ? That "A lets B rely on A", is similar to "A warrants to B". Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120917002736.gc6...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.
Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > Chris wrote: > > > >I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test > > Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the "dissident test". Hi Steve, I think that the "dissident test" and others are indirectly mentionned to everyone who wants to join Debian: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_pp1.txt?revision=1246&view=markup 60 PH7. How do you check if a license is DFSG-compatible? 61 62 PH8. There are a few "tests" for this purpose, based on (not really) common 63 situations. Explain them to me and point out which common problems can 64 be discovered by them. I do not find these tests particularly useful, but as long as they are promoted this way, we are likely to see people using them on this lit. If you think they create more noise than signal, perhaps you or others can consider asking for a change to the NM templates via a bug reported to nm.debian.org. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120917001842.ga6...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: About kstars-data-extra-tycho2 distributability
> > Le Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:54:05PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño a écrit : > > > On the package kstars-data-extra-tycho2 it has arisen a doubt about its > > > distributability: See bug #681654 > On Martes, 21 de agosto de 2012 02:55:43 Charles Plessy wrote: > > sorry to discard the arguments you already gave in #681654, but have you > > considered asking for a clarification to one of the current mainstream > > distributors ? > > > > http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Cat?target=http&cat=I/259 Le Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:33:38PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño a écrit : > I thought I sent this before, but it seems that not. > from: "HOTLINE-DU-CDS Non-Nominatif (UDS)" > subject: Re: About Catalogues License > message-id: <31d-5035ef80-1b-53516180@99327283> > > Dear Noel Torres, > here is the CDS policy for the scientific data we distribute: > > Catalogues available at CDS contain scientific data distributed > for free, for a scientific usage. > Companies including such data in their commercial products cannot > charge their clients for the data. Furthermore, users must be informed > of the origin of the data: this means an explicit reference to the service > provided by the CDS and also to the original author(s) of each catalogue. Hi Noel, sorry that I did not find it by myself. The following parts of their answer is ambiguous. "data distributed for free, for a scientific usage" Does it mean that other usages, for instance commercial, artistic or military, are disallowed if downloading the data for free ? "Companies including such data in their commercial products cannot charge their clients for the data." Does it mean that for-profit use is disallowed, or does it mean that, while one can charge for the software packages that redistributes and displays the data, the presence of the data can not be used as a justification in the price ? For that question in particular, the SIL open font license is an interesting example. It is Free according to Debian, but note the following clauses: 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web It means that one can sell a software that contains the font, but one can not sell an isolated file that contains just the font. Perhaps this is what is meant for the data in the CDS above ? All in all, I think that you unfortunately need to ask for one more clarification. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120830235727.gb3...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: About packages-metadata [was: Re: Freeness of this license]
Le Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:25:30PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > Do you mean that one can search by cloning the subversion repository > and then using grep (and other similar tools) recursively in the > resulting local directory tree? Yes, exactly. Since the all the copright files are in a subdirectory, the grep command can also be run on '*/*.copyright' instead of recursively; this will remove some noise as Subversion keeps copies in subdirectories. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120830230352.ga3...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Freeness of this license
Le Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:48:35AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > > LICENSEE shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Copyright > > Owners and their trustees, officers, employees, students and agents > > against any and all claims arising out of the exercise of any rights > > under this Agreement, including, without limiting the generality of > > the foregoing, against any damages, losses or liabilities whatsoever > > with respect to death or injury to person or damage to property > > arising from or out of the possession, use, or operation of Software > > or Licensed Program(s) by LICENSEE or its customers. > > This is an imposition of boundless and unknowable costs on the licensee, > based on the action of other parties. > > It goes far beyond the (already included) warranty disclaimer, and > reaches into the future life of the licensee to oblige legal defense of > the copyright holder. > > It makes the work non-free, in my opinion. Hi Ben and others, I would like to advertise the packages-metadata repository: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ svn://svn.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata Today it already contains 3431 Debian copyright files. Most of them are up to date (but consistency checks have not been implemented yet). Using this tool, one can search for similar license terms in the Debian archive. Note that the pool includes the non-free section... Given the multiplicity of variants, it is hard to tell if there are similar restrictions on works already accepted in Debian. Maybe the DNG SDK from Adobe in digikam ? 5. INDEMNIFICATION If you choose to distribute the Software in a commercial product, you do so with the understanding that you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Adobe against any losses, damages and costs arising from the claims, lawsuits or other legal actions arising out of such distribution. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120830045046.ga16...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: About kstars-data-extra-tycho2 distributability
Le Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:54:05PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño a écrit : > > On the package kstars-data-extra-tycho2 it has arisen a doubt about its > distributability: See bug #681654 Dear Noel, sorry to discard the arguments you already gave in #681654, but have you considered asking for a clarification to one of the current mainstream distributors ? http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Cat?target=http&cat=I/259 Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120821015543.ga11...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: CC-BY-SA 2.5 can be re-released under 3.0?
Le Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:49:23AM +0200, Fabio a écrit : > See this bug report: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=432095 > and my reply with links to CC FAQ (sorry for the broken links due to crappy > webmail). > > So would it be possible to just restrict the package license to 3.0 to be > debian compatible? Dear Fabio, CC licenses version 3.0 are compatible with version 2.0, but on the other hand, CC licenses do not allow to redistribute a work under a later license: the section 4.b, that contains « You may distribute [...] a Derivative Work [...] under [...] a later version of this License » only applies to derivatives (called adatpations in version 3.0). Section 4.a, which applies to the original work, does not give this permission. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120819003234.ga20...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: foremost package - Licence of debian/* files
Le Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 09:33:06PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:36:22 -0300 Raúl Benencia wrote: > > I see [1] that the package is currently public domain, except for a > couple of files, which are instead copyrighted and released under the > terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later. > > [1] > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/foremost/current/copyright > > Hence I wonder: why would you want to gratuitously restrict the whole > package to GPL-3+ just because of debian/* ? > I would suggest licensing debian/* files under GPL-2+ for consistency > with the packaged work. Actually, the only evidence I see for api.c and ole.h being GPL-2+ is the statement on Chicago's project page on SourceForge. http://sourceforge.net/projects/chicago/develop I would rather suggest a license more in line with public domain works, such as Creative Commons zero license, the SQLite public domain dedication, or the GNU all-permissive license. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120414032407.gc4...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
Le Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:23:39PM -0400, Clark C. Evans a écrit : > > I suggest that the developer may want to *contact* Google tell > them what you wish. Hi all, I just sent the following message in the following form. http://support.google.com/translate/toolkit/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=contact_us Email address: ple...@debian.org Subject: Sharing and Publishing Brief summary: Terms of use when translating through an intermediate. Message: Dear Google, . freetranslation.mobi offers translation services that are "Powered by Google", and I wonder if using freetranslation.mobi implies agreeing to Google's terms of service. . The question arises from a discussion where it is wondered if it is possible to submit copylefted material to Google Translate. You can see the (longish) thread the URL below. . http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/03/msg00031.html . By the way, can you confirm if the following terms of service are relevant to Google Translate ? . http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/#toc-content . Have a nice week-end, . -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan Let's see if we have an answer. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120325021327.gb5...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate
Le Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:31:24AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit : > > > So even if one accepted the terms of Google Translator, which I do > not, and used it directly instead of http://freetranslation.mobi/ >, > this part would then not be a licensing problem. But it seem > irrelevant for this discussion, as I was using > http://freetranslation.mobi/ > and not Google Translator. Dear Petter, are you sure if http://freetranslation.mobi/ actually respects Google's terms of use ? Being closed source, it is not possible for instance to see if it accesses the translations through Google's API or if it acts more like a rogue proxy. If you want to use freetranslation.mobi regularly, I would recommend to ask Google for a clarification. In any case, that you respect freetranslation.mobi's terms of use does not make you free from Google's terms. Imagine for instance if one would set up a website called gpl2bsd.org, which would substitute GPL notices by BSD notices: users obtaining the relicensed software would not be allowed to keep on following the BSD license after they are notified that they downloaded an unauthorized copy. According to http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ : When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services. In the case Google would publish a derivative of a GPLed text uploaded for translation, even in the "limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving [their] Service", the GPL would be violated if the derivative would not mention its original license in the published material. I admit that this is a far-fetched scenario, but that may need to be considered before pasting GPLed text in Google Translate. For the resulting translations, however, I think that I agree that there is no copyright claimed on them, and that they can be freely added to the original project. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120324032603.gb16...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files (Was: google translating gpl2+ licenced documentation...)
Le Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:09:00PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit : > > I wrote a small perl script to process through a .po file and pass all > completely untranslated text fragments to this service and store the > resulting translation (if it succeeded) as a fuzzy translation in the > .po file. The translation then need to be reviewed by a human before > it is used to generate the documentation in question. I checked in > rough translations in debian-edu-doc after first running this new tool > for en->nb and manually checking a few of the new translations. Hello everybody, this reminds me the behaviour of virtaal, which will propose to pre-fill tranlsations with the output of Microsoft Translator. If it is not possible to translate copylefted text with such services, maybe the functionality should be disabled by default ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120312133343.ga29...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
Le Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:34:10PM +0100, Jérémy Lal a écrit : > > In the latest version, "Author" has been replaced by "Original Author", > and that term defined in the copyright line : > https://raw.github.com/isaacs/npm/master/LICENSE Dear Jérémy, this clause is quite similar to the clause 6c of the The LaTeX Project Public License version 1.3c. 6. If you are not the Current Maintainer of the Work, you may distribute a Derived Work provided the following conditions are met (...) c. No information in the Derived Work implies that any persons, including (but not limited to) the authors of the original version of the Work, provide any support, including (but not limited to) the reporting and handling of errors, to recipients of the Derived Work unless those persons have stated explicitly that they do provide such support for the Derived Work. By analogy, it looks that the npm license is free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120311015132.ga10...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: picviz license (generated images as derivative work ?)
Le Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 03:45:40PM +0100, Pierre Chifflier a écrit : > > Note that the GPL places important restrictions on "derived works", yet > it does not provide a detailed definition of that term. To avoid > misunderstandings, we consider an application to constitute a > "derivative work" for the purpose of this license if it does any of the > following: > o Integrates source code from Picviz > o Integrates images generated by Picviz > o Executes Picviz and parses the results (as opposed to typical shell or > execution-menu apps, which simply display raw Picviz output and so are > not derivative works.) > o Integrates/includes/aggregates Picviz into a proprietary executable > installer, such as those produced by InstallShield. > o Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the above Dear Pierre, it looks like the Picviz authors want to prevent some competitors to encapsulate Picviz in a proprietary system. In many aspects, this is already forbidden by the GPL. Perhaps you can recommend them to ask for clarifications to the FSF if necessary, and perhaps also to have a look at the AGPL if among their worries there is the case where a competitor would make a proprietary web service encapsulating Picviz. Similarly, it looks like the GPL considers the the build and install system as part of the source code, and the clarification that Picviz should not be installed via InstallShield looks therefore unnecessary. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120226114307.gb8...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: XUL template - proper license
Le Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 08:50:45PM +0200, Θοδωρής Λύτρας a écrit : > > https://github.com/zotero/zotero/blob/master/chrome/content/zotero- > platform/unix/standalone/menuOverlay.xul > > It is a XUL template, and includes the following copyright notice: > > "The Original Code is Mozilla.org Code. > The Initial Developer of the Original Code is Netscape Communications > Corporation. Portions created by Netscape are Copyright (C) 1998-2000 > Netscape > Communications Corporation. All Rights Reserved." > > It's not clear to me which (if any) parts of the code is (C) Netscape. I > think > they just used it as a base to write their own menu in XUL. > > So I wonder: should I disregard this notice and consider this file to be part > of Zotero, and thus AGPLv3? And if not, how should I write it in my DEP-5 > compliant debian/copyright file?? Dear Theodore, looking at this file, and after reading https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XUL_Overlays, I think that there is nothing copyrightable remaining from whaterver template the Zotero authors used. Paul's suggest to ask them for confirmation is of course good to take. To document the current file in the machine-readable format, you can either add the Netscape copyright statement to the paragraph containing the Files: * pattern, as the AGPL-3+ is the main license of Zotero, or, at your option, make a specific Files paragraph for that file. In any case, machine-readable or not, you should not disregard copyright and license notices when writing the Debian copryight files. Have a nice day, and thank you very much for maintaining xul-ext-zotero ! -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120213003241.ga25...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DEP-5 best practice
Le Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 05:25:18PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit :
Dear Dmitry,
> 1) Question #1: what would be the best way to emphasise/distinguish
> difference between license of a software as a whole from the license
> of the most of its source files?
It is possible to use a License field in the Header paragraph, to summarise the
license of the package as a whole. There, you can explain the consequences of
combining GPL-2+ and GPL-3+.
> 2) Would it be accurate to merge two paragraphs above if there
> is no overlapping copyrights (but the same license) or
> is it better to keep two separate paragraphs?
It is less accurate, but permitted by the syntax. It is your choice. For
large packages, it will save a lot of time to the maintainer to collate the
copyright statements. For the packages I maintain, I like to give a separate
paragraphs to works that, although distributed under the same license, are
obviously independant, like contributed scripts, convenience copies of
libraries, etc.
> 3) Would it be correct to assume that files with lack of license header
> are covered by the license of a software as a whole, and therefore
> their copyright can be added to the very first DEP-5 paragraph
> or
> if such files qualify for standalone paragraph? (If latter is true,
> what's would be the best to put in License field?)
Note that this question is not specific to the machine-readable format. The
same problem arises when writing free-form copyright files.
There is no other solution than using common sense or contacting the authors.
For example, in case of works in a "contrib" directory, it can be questionnable
if they are distributed under the same license as the main files. For files in
the main source tree, it may be that the authors just forgot to add a notice.
In doubt, you need to contact the upstream authors.
If it is clarified that files lacking license notices are under the same
terms as the other files, they can be included in the same Files pattern.
> 4) Are the files with license header but no copyright, qualify for inclusion
> into second DEP-5 paragraph listing most of the contributors releasing
> files under matching license? (This is a license of roughly >95% of
> files in the package)
> 5) Are files with no license and no copyright qualify for standalone
> paragraph? (If not where would be the best to list them)
> 6) What would be the best way to describe such files according to DEP-5
> if this difference is significant?
Same as above. If you have doubts about the redistribution terms of a file
in a source pacakge, then you must not upload to the Debian archive. If you
write a machine-readable Debian copyright file where a Files paragraphs has
a pattern that matches everything ("Files: *"), then you basically state that,
in your opinion of maintainer, all files that are matched by that pattern,
regardless of the notices they contain or not, are distributed under the license
stated by that paragraph. For the copyright statements, the current practice
is to reproduce them and optionally combine them. If they are missing, then
there is nothing to reproduce.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120212073835.ga9...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Le Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 09:20:19AM -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : > > | without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into > | a separate written license agreement for such enhancements > > Ok. So, this language iss the one under debate I guess. > Simply putting on a license text isn't sufficient, you need > to *require* end users to *enter* into a *written* agreement. Hi, this is exactly the key point. In my understading, “to enter into a written license agreement” can be done by receiveing a license text, reading it and accepting it. If one can read it, it is written. But I am not a native speaker. If it is the meaning of the Internet2 license that both parties must sign a document in order to “enter into a written license agreement”, then it is not a free license. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120207082713.gd24...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Le Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:16:26PM +0100, Raoul Borenius a écrit : > > You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any enhancements to > Internet2, > or its contributors. If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you > choose to otherwise publish or distribute your enhancement, in source code > form > without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into a separate written > license agreement for such enhancements, then you thereby grant Internet2, its > contributors, and its members a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license > to copy, display, install, use, modify, prepare derivative works, incorporate > into the software or other computer software, distribute, and sublicense your > enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form. Dear Raoul, these terms have been discussed earlier on this list, and many commenters quiestionned its freeness. Nevertheless, our archive contains works distributed under very similar terms. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apbs/apbs_1.2.1b-1/copyright http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/08/msg00028.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg1.html This license allows to make derivatives under any terms, very similarly to the BSD license. It makes it impossible to publish derivatives under no terms at all. This restriction is much weaker than copyleft licenses, which forbid this as they also forbid to redistribute derivatives under non-copyleft terms. Thefore, while the validity of this concept of default license may be questionable, I do not think that it is non-free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120204002329.ga1...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Fwd: Re: Copyright and License status of "transtab"
Le Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:04:26PM -0800, Clint Byrum a écrit : > > I contacted the author of the python module, and the attributed author > of the directory in question. His reply is below. Dear Clint, In the reply, I read: > Should I ever get around to making another transtab release (an old, > unfinished project) Regardless of the license, this calls in question whether this piece of code is fit for the level of support expected for a Debian package. If there are possible replacements that are actively maintaine, it may pay off to switch to them. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120131233838.ga16...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Bug#388141: Ask contributors a permission to relicense
Le Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 02:45:20PM -0400, David Prévot a écrit : > > Since the “web team” is not a clearly defined entity, I propose, for > legal purpose, that the license choice stays ours but we mandate the > Debian project leader to publicly announce it once we have decided the > accurate license(s) (thus there is another safeguard: the “web team” > won't choose a silly license without a formal acknowledgement of the > Debian project by the voice of its leader). > > ——— > > Subject: Permission to relicense my work on the Debian website > > I hereby give permission to relicense my work — which consist of > edition or translation of portions of text from one human language to > another human language, that I have provided to the Debian website or > that I will provide in the future — to any DFSG compatible license as > chosen by the web team, and announced by the Debian project leader. > > ——— Dear David, I would definitely agree with the above. This said, it may be even simpler to make the contributors relicence themselves. For instance: I hereby license my past and future contributions to the Debian website, which consist of edition or translation of portions of text from one human language to another human language, under the DFSG compatible license that will be announced by the Debian project leader on the debian-devel-announce diffusion list in his next message titled “New license for the Debian website”. This removes questions such as “do we have the right to give the right to relicence”, or “what if in 10 years the website is re-relicensed with terms that I will not like (because the DFSG will have been amended)”, etc. One last comment – I realise that I gave many more than average – is that the contributors sometimes contribute some programmatic work as makefiles or perhaps patches to some scripts. If applicable, the relicensing would be even more simplified by targetting all contributions to the webwml repository. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116040509.ga10...@anx191.gsc.riken.jp
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
Le Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > > I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting > copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions > get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about > software freedom. That is why I won't sign a copyright assignment to a > for-profit entity. Hi Stefano, in my understanding, there is still a big difference between copyright assignment and re-licensing, even if we trust the license to be free. - In the case of assignment, the author has to comply with the license chosen by SPI. - In the case of re-licensing, the author can still use his work under the license he prefers. Imagine for example that I write for the Debian Med project's pages a short explanation of what ‘biological sequence alignment’ means. In that case, I would like to keep the option to re-use my work freely. However, if the website were copylefted, and if I would transfer my copyright, this would restrict my possibilities to re-use my own work. For that reason, I think that copyright assignment and choice of license can not be separated. Which is another good reason to go for relicensing or copyright disclaiming instead. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120109013219.ga18...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Local community license issue
Le Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 07:35:02PM +0200, Victor Nitu a écrit : > > Is the GNU GPL a decent enough license to be applied to our > contributors' work? Or any CC variant? What shall I answer to their > question, as a community website co-founder? Dear Victor, if you and the other contributors are not worried that your works will be used in proprietary derivatives, it may be most simple to take extremely liberal licenses, like the Unlicense, or to explore the way the Translation Project does, that is to promise to not exert copyrights. http://unlicense.org/ http://translationproject.org/html/whydisclaim.html Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120108091050.gd1...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: conflict between name and text of a license
Le Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:28:05PM +0100, Cédric Boutillier a écrit : > > I am packaging a software containing files with the COPYING file here > attached. They have a double BSD and D&R, but the text below "BSD > License" is in fact that of the MIT/Expat license. Dear Cédric, since the Expat license is already a renamed MIT license, I think that you can go ahead and call the syck's files license "MIT" or "Expat". If it is for a copyright file in the DEP 5 format, it is preferred to call it "Expat". You can anyway add a comment reminding that the files' author wrongly called the license "BSD", if you would like. If you think that we can not exclude that the author, when writing "BSD", really meant that he wants his software to be licensed under the same terms as a "BSD" license, and not under the terms that he wrote, then maybe the safest would be to help the upstream author who uses these files in unit tests to replace them. That would also have the advantage of getting rid of the D&R, which some (me for instance) may find bad taste. One of the problems of saying "BSD" is that it does not indicate the terms clearly, as for instance the first version of the BSD license had a GPL-incompatible advertisemnt clause… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111213231832.gc19...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Fwd: Re: RFS: wmaker
Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:49:47AM -0500, Hendrik Weimer a écrit : > Charles Plessy writes: > > > The public-domain short name is reserved for cases where the work is > > really in the public domain in the strict legal sense of it; this is a > > rare case (for instance, some works of U. S. government employees). > > US government works are only in the public domain when distributed > within the US. In all other countries that have signed the Berne > Convention you still need a license, which should also apply to many > Debian mirrors. > > http://www.quantenblog.net/free-software/us-copyright-international Hi, at least for the Debian point of view, what I can say is that it redistributes public domain US government works outside US without license, and that the FTP team does not seem to find it problematic, as in my experience it still accepts packages containing such works. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2015223049.gm25...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Fwd: Re: RFS: wmaker
Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:50:43AM +0100, Rodolfo kix Garcia a écrit : > > I am not sure if I can use the "WTFPL-1" license in the "License" > field. In the file "http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/"; are the possible > licenses to use, and of course, WTFPL-1 license is not included. Dear Rodolfo, The list in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ is not limitative, you can use WTFPL-1 or any other keyword if you like. The public-domain short name is reserved for cases where the work is really in the public domain in the strict legal sense of it; this is a rare case (for instance, some works of U. S. government employees). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2015082442.ga27...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Le Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 07:02:53PM -0400, Felyza Wishbringer a écrit : > Would this be better wording? > > "2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it" Dear Felyza, I think that unfortunately, there is no possiblity to have a license that is short and fun / satyrical / provocative / …, and at the same time have a wording that accurately fits the laws of many countries about liabilities and intellectual property. Just see for instance at the Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication license: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode This said, there are some minimalistic license that have a very short disclaimer, like the GNU All-Permissive license: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110927232906.ga6...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: recommendation for packaging license
Le Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 02:10:38PM +0200, Thomas Koch a écrit : > Hi, > > I try to use the machine readable copyright format. Maybe you'd like to see > whether I got it right (attached). > > Could you enhance the documentation of the copyright format or the policy > with > a recommendation for the copyright in the debian/* files section? Dear Thomas, you can check the syntax of a machine-readable Debian copyright file with the config-edit tool. More informations can be found in the following blog post. http://ddumont.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/debian-copyright-dep5-parsereditorvalidatormigrator-is-released/ For the packaging work, I usually consider it trivial and do not claim a copyright on it. Packages without debian/* files paragraph in debian/copyright are regularly accepted by the FTP team. If you chose to explicitely declare a copyright in some files in the debian directory, using the same license as upstream will keep the debian/copyright file valid without debian/* sections through the catch-all files paragraph. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110903095032.gc6...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Are ‘UniProt’ records complying with the DFSG ?
Le Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:50:15PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit : > > unfortunately IMHO we (Debian) are not in position to provide such legal > service to the community as to claim that something is not copyrightable > (e.g., are you sure it is not in all jurisdictions?) in contradiction to > the author's original copyright/license claim. We can only > contact "upstream" and try clarifying/changing various license issues > (in my case above the author is already R.I.P... heh), strip such > questionable materials or complement them by shipping in non-free... I > see no other way around. Le Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 07:21:35AM +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > > There's a notice at the top which explains that the FAQ has been > superseded. It doesn't appear to be a mere policy matter, the legal > analysis seems rather incomplete. Thanks for your comments. I have contacted the UniProt consortium about the UniProt records in EMBOSS, to ask them if they consider them copyrightable, and if it is not the case, if they could provide a replacement such as test data distributed under a Free license. If this does not work, I will ask for the removal of EMBOSS and re-upload to non-free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110724235600.gb6...@merveille.plessy.net
Are ‘UniProt’ records complying with the DFSG ?
rated into UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot. DT 01-JUL-1989, sequence version 1. DT 10-FEB-2009, entry version 109. DE RecName: Full=Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; DEShort=G-CSF; DE AltName: Full=Pluripoietin; DE AltName: INN=Filgrastim; DE AltName: INN=Lenograstim; DE Flags: Precursor; GN Name=CSF3; Synonyms=GCSF; OS Homo sapiens (Human). Point (iv) of CC's FAQ notes that: “The data: – whether the data itself is copyrightable, depends on what it is. To the extent it consists of factual information, it will not be copyrightable. For example, the contents of NCBI’s Entrez Gene database include gene names, descriptions, pathways, protein products, and other facts. However, to the extent the data is creative and expressive works, such as papers or photographs, then the database content itself is likely to be protected by copyright. Even if copyright protection extends to a paper or photograph contained in a database, that copyright will not extend to the information and ideas expressed in these materials.” To me, the contents of the records above look factual. Can I conclude that, being non-copyrightable, the file is not non-free despite its license statement ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110720013742.gb4...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Font license
Le Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:09:15PM +0200, أحمد المحمودي a écrit : > > 1.The Font Software cannot be Sold, Modified, Altered, Translated, > Reverse Engineered, Decompiled, Disassembled, Reproduced or Attempted to > discover the Source Code of this Font in no means. Dear Ahmed, this is very restrictive and somewhat ambiguous. For instance depending on what “Reproduced” is interpreted it may mean that we can not redistribute copies. Perhaps you can try the other way round: explaining the DFSG upstream, and asking them if they confirm that their license is compatible with our guidelines, after undelining the potential problems. This may be a good opportunity to ask them if they would kindly consider a free license, or at least a non-free license that is already in Debian. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110509134452.ga32...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: The "Evil Cookie Producer" case
Le Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Bruno Lowagie a écrit : > Op 7/03/2011 11:02, Charles Plessy schreef: > > > >Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the > >producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText’, if > >this > >addition to the AGPL does not fall under Section 7(b), this makes iText > >potentially > >incompatible with other works released under the (A)GPL license. That alone > >may > >be a reason to reconsider this additional term. > > Is there any jurisdiction about this I can forward to my attorney? I do not have experience in contacting them, but I think that if I were in your case, I would ask directly to Free Software Foundation, since they probably know the best what is the intention behind Section 7. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110307101252.gd22...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: The "Evil Cookie Producer" case
> > "In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public > License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created > or manipulated using iText." Hello, in my understanding of section 7 of the AGPL, the supplemental terms are there to ensure compatibility with other free license, and the ‘legal notices or author attributions’ that are the object of the paragraph b) are typically found in the program's source code, not in code or the data generated by the program. The GPL has a similar section. Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText’, if this addition to the AGPL does not fall under Section 7(b), this makes iText potentially incompatible with other works released under the (A)GPL license. That alone may be a reason to reconsider this additional term. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110307100240.gc22...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: copyright on upstream patches
Le Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:16:26AM +0100, Harald Jenny a écrit : > > I also thought about this but as the license text for the University of > California differes slightly from the one of Petr Rehor I wasn't sure this is > the correct way to do it - I also thought about: Oops, I missed this as the first and the last BSD texts were identical… > Files: * > Copyright: 2005, Petr Rehor > License: BSD-1 > > Files: compat/fts_compat.h, compat/daemon.c, compat/mkdtemp.c, >compat/fts_open.c > Copyright: 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, The Regents of the University of >California > License: BSD > LICENSE TEXT FROM California > > Files: debian/* > Copyright: 2009-2011, Harald Jenny > License: BSD-1 > > License: BSD-1 > LICENSE TEXT FROM Petr Rehor > > As I'm not sure how detailed the exact wording of the license text must be > preserved I wanted to be on the safe side but when it's ok to just use the > amavisd-milter License stanza also for the University of California this is > for > sure better... what's the list's opinion on this? That is a good point. My personal impression (but not really an informed opinion: I am ready to change my mind if I hear good arguments), is that if the license text is not identical to the reference BSD license, then it is not the BSD license. Note that if you pick BSD-1 as a keyword, it looks like a versionned short name. How about BSD-like ? Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110218110358.ge...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: data "copyright" or not -- what is Debian's take?
Le Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:44:34AM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit : > > Or should I advise to use the text of MIT license, verbally and > explicitly describing possible uses and disclaiming any warranty? > but once again without any copyright statement. Dear Yaroslav, licenses of the family of the MIT or the BSD require to to reproduce copyright statements on derivatives, and I think that it would cause headaches to many to attempt to seriously comply with them. We are blessed that a lot of data is truly in the U.S. public domain and therefore we can use it completely freely. In case deposition in the public domain is not permitted by the law, I would recommend to use very permissive terms. Some people keep it short, with the WTFPL or the politically correcter BOLA, and some people prefer longer terms to hammer the fact that by giving their data, they can not be responsible for disappointments, errors or misuses made by third parties. The Creative Commons Zero was invented for that case. http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ In any case, I recommend to not use the MIT or equivalent licenses that are picky on copyright reproduction, unless it is the will of the copyright holders to have their names accompanying each and every derivative. But can you imagine the mess if one had to track which contributor to acknowledge when reproducing an extract of the human genome ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110125055904.ga...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: fmodapi license and non-free
Le Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:27:37PM +, Johey Shmit a écrit : > > If fmod.org don't want to change the license, would it be ok to make a package > that just downloads the binaries and installs them (as for example > 'flashplugin-nonfree')? I think it is the usual workaround, yes. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110113225938.ge7...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: fmodapi license and non-free
Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:47:09PM +, Johey Shmit a écrit : > > There is a Non-Commercial License which to me sounds like it's ok for > 'non-free'. It can be found at http://www.fmod.org/index.php/sales and reads: […] > Can anyone confirm if that's ok for 'non-free'? Dear Johey, this license does not allow explicitely redistribution, so I think that you would need a clarification from fmod. In addition the license does not allow modification as well, so even if it were technically possible to redistribute the software in the non-free area of our archive, the package would be very difficult to maintain. So it looks like a bad start… Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110112232147.ga20...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: trademark infringement FreeFOAM
Le Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:27:38PM +0100, Gerber van der Graaf a écrit : > OpenCFD (R) has issued new guidelines for their tradmark OpenFOAM: > http://www.openfoam.com/legal/trademark-guidelines.php > My question is if these are legal: not allowing hydrostaticFoam as your > self-written new solver for example. So, actually they are claiming the > "FOAM" word to be used in a name. Dear Gerber, perhaps you can compare with the trademark usage policy for Python ? While it will not give you a precise answer, I hope it can be a useful reference for you since Python is distributed in Debian. http://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101124004105.ga23...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: package changing their license to get into main (sandboxgamemaker)
Le Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 09:02:03PM -0400, Platinum Arts a écrit : > With asking to be attributed in a certain way, how is that different than a > creative commons attribute part of the license? I think in the future I > will just licensed the project itself Creative Commons BY SA. Thanks and > take care. If the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) v3.0 fits to you, that would be the simplest solution. Note that earlier versions have not been accepted in Debian. (Unfortunately, I have not studied the difference, nor followed the discussions, so I can not tell what makes v3.0 better.) Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101104014920.gb17...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: package changing their license to get into main (sandboxgamemaker)
Le Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 02:05:15PM -0400, Scott Howard a écrit : > > I'm the maintainer of sandboxgamemaker, currently a contrib package > because upstream's license is restrictive regarding content > distribution. > > However, upstream has worked to make their license more permissive so > that the package can be included in main. > > The new license is below > [http://www.svn.kids.platinumarts.net/32pas32/trunk/LICENSE.txt]: > > "You are free to use and redistribute Platinum Arts Sandbox Free 3D Game Maker > (Sandbox) in binary and/or source code form if the following > conditions are met: Dear Scott and Platinum Arts, I do not know if it is on purpose or if it is a simple omission, but the license does not allow modification of Sandbox, nor redistribution of modified versions. This is asked by the Debian Free Software Guideline #3: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines For the advertisement clause (n°3), I know that Debian has traditionally allowed some since the original BSD license had one, but in my personnal opinion, they are borderline in respect of the DFSG #6 (The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor). I see that in the clause for educators (n°7), the wording is to ‘request’ to contact Platinum Arts. Perhaps the ‘must’ of the advertisement clause could be reworded similarly? This brings a very similar message to the user, but (an maybe other readers may confirm) gives the ounce of flexibility necessary for making that point more in line with the spirit of the DFSG #6, if not with the practice. (By the way, although the infrastructure is not ready yet, and may take a long time, some maintainers of medical scientific packages are facing a similar problem of having software under strong pressure for acknowledgement (in that case, the source of funding for the project), and we intend to solve this by adding better metadata to the package itself, which indicates what to acknowledge, where to donate, where users can register, etc. This will take time, but we think that it is a better way to support Upstream in return for the software they give us.) Have a nice thay, and many thanks to you and Platinum Arts for your efforts with licensing ! -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101104005802.ga17...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: SWIG license change to GPLv3, wording of debian/copyright?
Le Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:26:43PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff a écrit : > > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-swig/branches/swig2.0/LICENSE-UNIVERSITIES > > Instead I would rather refer to common-licenses, but the texts of the license > in there do not match word-by-word with BSD/MIT. > > Does anybody think it is wrong to summarize in debian/copyright that SWIG > is GPLv3 with parts being under MIT or BSD license instead of putting in > a full copy? It is my understanding that GPLv3 is the most restrictive > license of the bunch. Dear Torsten, The GPL adds restrictions but does not cancel the terms of the MIT and BSD licenses, so their requrirement that ‘Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice…’ still fully applies: you have to quote them entirely. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100811231821.gc24...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Le Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:31:52AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > I assume “how could that happen” there refers to the legal confusion. I > don't pretend to be an expert, but “The Debian project is a major > copyright holder in this work which caused damage to our systems, and > there's no warranty disclaimer” isn't particularly implausible. > > Such a situation would predictably (not inevitably) lead to a court > battle over who caused the damage; even if the Debian project knows that > it's blameless, that could be expensive to prove in a court case. Hi Ben and Pompee, it would be much more productive if this scenario would be accompanied with some data and facts about which law in which country make the non-warranty disclaimer necessary, exemplified by cases where these laws have successfully been used in court by the plaintiff. In the absence of such an analysis, the discussion is purely about fear, uncertainty and doubt. While it is true that most of the major players in the free software world have opted for having non-warranty disclaimers in their license, I think that we should do our best to base our actions on our understanding, not on the imitation of the others. It is the addition of extra clauses and vague disclaimers that sometimes make licenses non-free (clauses like ‘do not kill people with my software’), so let's resist to temptation of making our license statements longer than what is necessary. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100629235934.ga6...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Le Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:05:39PM -0300, Dererk a écrit : > > I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, > before releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take > a look at this text and tell me what your opinions are, before > getting rejected on the NEW queue :-) > > Altought IANAL, It appears to me that it meets the requirements, > but, as I mentioned, I would like your advice about it. Hello Derek, in summary, the work can be distributed under the GPLv2 or superior, or under the GPLv3 or superior with an exemption that lifts the incompatibility with the OpenSSL license (but that can not be used to accept new incompatible clauses that would be added after March 2010). This exemption can be removed, provided of course that the program is not linked anymore with OpenSSL. I do not see either something that would contradict the DFSG. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100409003426.ga28...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Le Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:56:44PM -0500, Joe Neal a écrit : > > http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code Hi Joe, have you seen the comment of Joey Hess, that it ‘Looks like the jsmin.py in libv8 is now a reimplementation with a standard license.’ Have a nice week-end, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100327060419.ga28...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Vagueness of what is ‘sub stantial’ in the Expat license.
Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:56:33AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > > The apparent intent of the author would be well served by the > widely-understood and wholly free-software Expat license terms > http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>. As it stands, only the > copyright holders in the work can make that change. Dear Ben and everybody, I would like to make a small comment about the “Expat” license, that personally I would not recommend when proposing a relicensing, because of the following sentence: ‘The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.’ It is not easy to guess what each author will expect to be “substantial”. Some other licenses are more explicit, for instance by requesting to reproduce the copyright notice in source and binary distribution, or in contrary only in the source: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html 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. http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100321015722.gb31...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: GPL3 compatible?
Le Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 03:45:51PM -0700, Ludovico Cavedon a écrit : > Hi, > I was wondering whether this license statement is DFSG/GPL3 compatible. > > /* Copyright (C) 1997-2001 Ken Turkowski. > * > * All rights reserved. > * > * Warranty Information > * Even though I have reviewed this software, I make no warranty > * or representation, either express or implied, with respect to this > * software, its quality, accuracy, merchantability, or fitness for a > * particular purpose. As a result, this software is provided "as is," > * and you, its user, are assuming the entire risk as to its quality > * and accuracy. > * > * This code may be used and freely distributed as long as it includes > * this copyright notice and the above warranty information. > */ > > The statement does not explicitly state that modifications are allowed, > but just says that the code is "freely distributable". > How should this be considered wrt DFSG? > > Moreover the upstream author of RawTherapee re-licensed the file under > GPL3 (keeping the above statement, but adding a GPL3 header). AFAIK he > cannot do that, but the file has to keep only its original license... > correct? Dear Ludovico, it looks like you are discussing the file rtengine/cubic.cc in RawTherapee: http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/source/browse/trunk/rtengine/cubic.cc I will answer to your last question first. If the RawTherapee authors obtained the agreement of Ken Turkowski to relicense his work, then there is no problem to have it licensed under the GPL and the above custom license. The GPL gives the freedoms that are necessary for Debian and are not explicitely written in the original license, and the original license does not withdraw freedoms given by the GPL. If you have doubts that the relicensing was permitted, then it is better to contact both parties before proposing a RawTherapee package to Debian. The original license cubic.cc is vague by todays standards, and it would be preferable to check with the original author that he really meant that he does not want his source code to be modified. rtengine/cubic.cc is not very long and implements an algebra forumla that was discovered centuries ago. If it is confirmed that there are license issues, for instance if the original author is not reachable, then replacing the file can be the easiest solution to the problem. Have a nice sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100321014305.ga31...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: msntp license
[CC Jakub Drnec because I correct one statement I made earlier this year about the MSNTP license] Le Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit : > * Charles Plessy: > > I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor > > burn a CD and sell it with financial benefit without express written > > consent of > > the copyright holders of MSNTP? > > You can't do that with software released under the Artistic license, > either, that's why the situation is a bit complicated. I am not sure if you are proposing to keep MSNTP or remove packages with contents redistributed under the Artistic License 1.0 only… In the case of MSNTP, the removal was anyway blessed by the package maintainer for other QA considerations. For the Artistic License in general, well, some other projects like Fedora are removing works distributed under the Artistic Licence version 1.0 only. This would be doable here, but if such a proposition is made and accepted, I strongly recommend to make it in the form of a release goal for the next release. This said, I realised that the Artistic and MSNTP licenses permits to sell Debian CDs for profit: “You may also distribute MSNTP along with any other product for sale, provided that the cost of the bundled package is the same regardless of whether MSNTP is included or not” “you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution”. I was perhaps wrong when I wrote that MSNTP is not free (<20100302115733.gb30...@kunpuu.plessy.org>), since we tolerate similar clauses for other works. But I if anybody is tempted to adopt and upload the package with the necessary corrections and updates, I recommend to think twice since upstream does not show signs of activity for a long time (at least using the Google search enging). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100315234533.ga25...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: msntp license
Le Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 02:43:07AM +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit : > * Charles Plessy: > > >> Excerpt from the license: " 1. You may distribute MSNTP or components of > >> MSNTP, with or without additions developed by you or by others. No charge, > >> other than an "at-cost" distribution fee, may be charged for copies, > >> derivations, or distributions of this material without the express written > >> consent of the copyright holders. > >> > >> 2. You may also distribute MSNTP along with any other product for sale, > >> provided that the cost of the bundled package is the same regardless of > >> whether MSNTP is included or not, and provided that those interested only > >> in > >> MSNTP must be notified that it is a product freely available from the > >> University of Cambridge. " > > > good catch, the package is not free. > > Why? The Artistic license contains a similar clause. Hi Florian, I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor burn a CD and sell it with financial benefit without express written consent of the copyright holders of MSNTP? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100315014758.gb15...@kunpuu.plessy.org
