Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] MIT +no-false-attribs
On 10/03/2012 01:23, Ben Finney wrote: Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: On 09/03/2012 23:14, Ben Finney wrote: On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote: In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's working. The fact that npm is not in the distro is worse for the distro than it is for npm. That's certainly not going to help in any discussions to work with Debian. Maybe we would be best respecting the copyright holder's clearly stated wishes to keep this work out of Debian. What he implies is that he'd rather keep npm in debian unstable. Jose Luis Rivas ghost...@debian.org writes: As far as I'm concerned, and reading the answer from the copyright holder, he just wishes not to be bug by any change from the distro-side. Jérémy and Jose, you are reading Isaac's words in a way I can't understand. We are just reading between the lines. I may be wrong, but i think he's just saying it with bad faith. Here's the kind of guy we're dealing with : https://github.com/isaacs/npm/issues/533 Isaac is clear about his intent for the effect of the license: “if the terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's working.” That's not “he'd rather keep npm in Debian unstable”, since he also wants the work to remain out of “any particular distro”. Keeping the work in Debian unstable does not meet that intent. That's not “he just wishes not to be bugged” – yes, he wishes not to be bugged, but he goes further: he states that it is an intent of the license to keep the package out of “any particular distro”. It would be nice to believe what you are both saying, but Isaac's words contradict that belief. He is explicitly stating he does not want the package in Debian “or any particular distro”. He is explicitly stating that's an intent of the license terms. I think we should honour that intent, since the upstream attitude is surely an indicator that they will resist any requests to make the work easier to package in Debian. Should he take more obvious measures, i'd say yes. My preference goes to sharing the npm packaging work to other debian users, but i also can do that on a private repository - that's what he wants. Anyway right now it's only at the discussion level. His license terms are not against DFSG, are they ? Jérémy. -- 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/4f5b255f.8090...@melix.org
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: MIT +no-false-attribs
On 24/01/2012 15:24, MJ Ray wrote: Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com following npm license is Expat + one restriction, is it still DFSG ? If it just this one addition: Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software, containing modifications that substantially alter, remove, or disable functionality of the Software, outside of the documented configuration mechanisms provided by the Software, shall be modified such that the Author's bug reporting email addresses and urls are either replaced with the contact information of the parties responsible for the changes, or removed entirely. Then I feel that would be acceptable under DFSG 4 but it's not exact and I have not looked for similar examples in the archive. The wording could be better and suggests a need to consult a lawyer. Actually, as a quick fix, could you just remove the undefined word Author's from it? Hope that helps, After some exchanges, it appears the author welcomes clarifications to its addition to the license. 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 To be honest, i have been bad at arguing with him; here's his last reply : On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote: On 06/03/2012 18:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I would recommend upstream to not try hack legalese but instead simply document clearly a friendly _request_ to do do same as now codified in license. However, it is clearly in Debian's interest, and not in mine, so it is not reasonable for me to comply with it. The goal is to prevent distros from clobbering my software and letting me handle the fallout. Friendly requests in the past have gone unheeded by several different groups, some of which asserted that they have the right to direct bug reports to me, claiming that it's *my* responsibility to make my software work with their distribution (after they've modified it without my knowledge!) The only thing that distros pay any attention to is LICENSE files, so that what I use here. (Evidenced clearly by the degree of attention that has been paid to it in this case - would anyone care if it was a plain old MIT?) If a particular person or distribution would like a special dispensation to disable or alter features in npm, and to then distribute their modified copy without changing the name, then they may ask for that directly, and we can perhaps work something out, whereby they take ownership of their changes, clearly communicate them to users, and perhaps even rebrand the software as a downstream fork. If a distro wishes to alter or disable features of npm, and does *not* wish to take ownership of their changes, then it would be better for me if they did not include npm in their distribution. Linux users can already install npm quite easily from source. Debian users can get it from Chris Lea's PPA, which does not alter the source code, and thus has no problem complying with the license. Mac and PC users can get it automatically along with the node binary installers. Anyone who installs node from source gets it by default. In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's working. The fact that npm is not in the distro is worse for the distro than it is for npm. This is not encouraging, despite that : * it is really easy to comply with this license. * the bug-reporting contacts can be changed easily * they don't need to be changed anyway, the npm debian package won't need any patch (i mean the one being prepared, version 1.1.x, not the one in sid, which is outdated) * the author knows perfectly well i'm willing to distribute npm unpatched, since we've talked this through a while ago. What can i do from now on ? Jérémy. -- 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/4f5a22f2.2060...@melix.org
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] MIT +no-false-attribs
On 12-03-09 at 04:34pm, Jérémy Lal wrote: * it is really easy to comply with this license. * the bug-reporting contacts can be changed easily * they don't need to be changed anyway, the npm debian package won't need any patch (i mean the one being prepared, version 1.1.x, not the one in sid, which is outdated) * the author knows perfectly well i'm willing to distribute npm unpatched, since we've talked this through a while ago. NB! The fact that npm *currently* need no patching is irrelevant. As an example, imagine a security fix NMU - i.e. a patch applied by someone not closely familiar with the package: Would easily violate the license. I therefore recommend that if npm is packaged for Debian then we take the necessary steps from the beginning even if not strictly required, to avoid future complications. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote: In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's working. The fact that npm is not in the distro is worse for the distro than it is for npm. That's certainly not going to help in any discussions to work with Debian. Maybe we would be best respecting the copyright holder's clearly stated wishes to keep this work out of Debian. -- \“Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas | `\ are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.” | _o__)—Howard Aiken | Ben Finney -- 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/87fwdhl8w6@benfinney.id.au
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
On 09/03/2012 23:14, Ben Finney wrote: Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote: In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's working. The fact that npm is not in the distro is worse for the distro than it is for npm. That's certainly not going to help in any discussions to work with Debian. Maybe we would be best respecting the copyright holder's clearly stated wishes to keep this work out of Debian. What he implies is that he'd rather keep npm in debian unstable. For now that will automatically happen, because it depends on the RC-buggy nodejs package. We can do the same for npm and keep it in unstable until its author is okay with long-term support. Jérémy. -- 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/4f5a93c9.6070...@melix.org
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] MIT +no-false-attribs
On 03/09/2012 05:44 PM, Ben Finney wrote: Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes: On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote: In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's working. The fact that npm is not in the distro is worse for the distro than it is for npm. That's certainly not going to help in any discussions to work with Debian. Maybe we would be best respecting the copyright holder's clearly stated wishes to keep this work out of Debian. As far as I'm concerned, and reading the answer from the copyright holder, he just wishes not to be bug by any change from the distro-side. And I can't blame him for that. Anyway, we have our own BTS and maintain separately debian patches, that's the reason why we have debian/ in the first place. Why there's a problem? -- Jose Luis Rivas - GPG: 0x7C4DF50D / 0xCACAB118 The Debian Project Developer -- http://ghostbar.ath.cx Barquisimeto, Venezuela signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com following npm license is Expat + one restriction, is it still DFSG ? If it just this one addition: Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software, containing modifications that substantially alter, remove, or disable functionality of the Software, outside of the documented configuration mechanisms provided by the Software, shall be modified such that the Author's bug reporting email addresses and urls are either replaced with the contact information of the parties responsible for the changes, or removed entirely. Then I feel that would be acceptable under DFSG 4 but it's not exact and I have not looked for similar examples in the archive. The wording could be better and suggests a need to consult a lawyer. Actually, as a quick fix, could you just remove the undefined word Author's from it? Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- 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/e1rphiv-0005vp...@petrol.towers.org.uk
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
Jérémy Lal, 2012-01-24 01:55+0100: I will, and concur. But knowing upstream i can tell he'll need stronger arguments. The 3-clause BSD license would seem to be appropriate considering what the author apparently wants. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- 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/jfmjul$3se$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:51:44 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Jérémy Lal wrote: following npm license is Expat + one restriction, License proliferation is bad, please help get rid of it by asking upstream to switch to a standard license. Fully agreed. I would recommend the zlib license: http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html which explicitly forbids misrepresentation of modified versions (see clause 2). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp6oXu73a7w8.pgp Description: PGP signature
MIT +no-false-attribs
Hi, following npm license is Expat + one restriction, is it still DFSG ? Regards, Jérémy. MIT +no-false-attribs License Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software, containing modifications that substantially alter, remove, or disable functionality of the Software, outside of the documented configuration mechanisms provided by the Software, shall be modified such that the Author's bug reporting email addresses and urls are either replaced with the contact information of the parties responsible for the changes, or removed entirely. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -- 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/4f1de594.8000...@edagames.com
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Jérémy Lal wrote: following npm license is Expat + one restriction, License proliferation is bad, please help get rid of it by asking upstream to switch to a standard license. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/CAKTje6HWFOxjwHp=gzxpzzpazqgk-n9shbpdyonk8afpnrr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
On 24/01/2012 01:51, Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Jérémy Lal wrote: following npm license is Expat + one restriction, License proliferation is bad, please help get rid of it by asking upstream to switch to a standard license. I will, and concur. But knowing upstream i can tell he'll need stronger arguments. Jérémy. -- 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/4f1e016e.2000...@edagames.com
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com writes: On 24/01/2012 01:51, Paul Wise wrote: License proliferation is bad, please help get rid of it by asking upstream to switch to a standard license. I will, and concur. But knowing upstream i can tell he'll need stronger arguments. If “license proliferation hurts us all” isn't strong enough, then it will depend on exactly why that argument doesn't convince them. You may need to engage them in an extended discussion, and convince them on whatever ground you think appropriate. Thank you for taking on the task of maintainer. -- \ “Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in | `\ behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.” —Ambrose | _o__) Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | Ben Finney -- 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/87ty3lztqs@benfinney.id.au
