Re: [php-maint] Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:13:25PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote: > > OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated > > module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply. > > This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts. I do not think our social contract allows us to assess whether a DFSG violation "is worth our efforts" on a case by case basis. > I seems extremely unlikely that the author of the software could have a > legally valid case where a judge would positively decide that a use case > is objectively "Evil" and in violation of this license. I don't see a > practical risk to anyones freedom being in jeopardy here. Quite the opposite, in fact. Where a vague, indefinite concept is used to describe a legal obligation, there is more leeway for either investigating the parties' original intent or for judicial discretion, both of which fail our users with regard to our promise of freedom of use. -- 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/20130513200955.ga16...@pastore.eng.br
Re: [php-maint] Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
On Mon, May 13, 2013 15:31, Walter Landry wrote: > "Thijs Kinkhorst" wrote: >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote: >>> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated >>> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply. >> >> This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts. >> >> I seems extremely unlikely that the author of the software could have a >> legally valid case where a judge would positively decide that a use case >> is objectively "Evil" and in violation of this license. I don't see a >> practical risk to anyones freedom being in jeopardy here. >> >> Surely it's an annoying license, so when removing it is opportune we >> should do it, but in this case the potential gains (if any?) do not seem >> to outweigh the cost. > > The problem is not whether Debian can distribute the software. The > problem is that the tarball that Debian distributes to users must not > contain non-free bits. This is hardly the first time that this has > come up [1]. Yes, it is annoying for the packager. But it is useful for > the user to know that, whatever is in the tarball, they will not have > to do any forensic analysis before using the tarball. My argument is not about this general idea but against this specific case for this license. Thijs -- 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/22a4670c7d95cc80781db8b7918c46bf.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: [php-maint] Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
"Thijs Kinkhorst" wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote: >> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated >> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply. > > This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts. > > I seems extremely unlikely that the author of the software could have a > legally valid case where a judge would positively decide that a use case > is objectively "Evil" and in violation of this license. I don't see a > practical risk to anyones freedom being in jeopardy here. > > Surely it's an annoying license, so when removing it is opportune we > should do it, but in this case the potential gains (if any?) do not seem > to outweigh the cost. The problem is not whether Debian can distribute the software. The problem is that the tarball that Debian distributes to users must not contain non-free bits. This is hardly the first time that this has come up [1]. Yes, it is annoying for the packager. But it is useful for the user to know that, whatever is in the tarball, they will not have to do any forensic analysis before using the tarball. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu [1] For example, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00083.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00280.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/07/msg00043.html -- 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/20130513.063112.1924456364084710209.wlan...@caltech.edu
Re: [php-maint] Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote: > OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated > module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply. This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts. I seems extremely unlikely that the author of the software could have a legally valid case where a judge would positively decide that a use case is objectively "Evil" and in violation of this license. I don't see a practical risk to anyones freedom being in jeopardy here. Surely it's an annoying license, so when removing it is opportune we should do it, but in this case the potential gains (if any?) do not seem to outweigh the cost. Cheers, Thijs -- 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/5237f999d85ea51a63ad381a524d759f.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply. O. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote: > >> But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source files >> per se, it's just not permitted to use the "software" for Evil. > > Right. The non-free part of the archive is for such software. Debian > main consists only of free software (including source code). > >> And since we will not be using those source files, it seems to be ok >> to distribute them as part of upstream tarball. But IANAL... > > What upstream distributes is their own business. What we distribute in > main (including source code) has to comply with the DFSG, which means > it must be possible to use it for evil. > > -- > bye, > pabs > > http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- Ondřej Surý -- 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/caljhhg8a44gok_8x6p_ow3m23fvrywjpn5t8ztki75okrkd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote: > But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source files > per se, it's just not permitted to use the "software" for Evil. Right. The non-free part of the archive is for such software. Debian main consists only of free software (including source code). > And since we will not be using those source files, it seems to be ok > to distribute them as part of upstream tarball. But IANAL... What upstream distributes is their own business. What we distribute in main (including source code) has to comply with the DFSG, which means it must be possible to use it for evil. -- 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/caktje6g24a0tzieco97eesy+embwqytrc1wwvioxkvcwfjf...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source files
per se, it's just not permitted to use the "software" for Evil.
And since we will not be using those source files, it seems to be ok
to distribute them as part of upstream tarball. But IANAL...
Ondrej
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
>> Would it be OK to distribute those source files ("no-evil") and not
>> use them to compile the extension?
>
> Source packages are part of main too and thus should not contain non-free
> stuff.
>
> --
> bye,
> pabs
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
Ondřej Surý
--
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/CALjhHG9fKSWceiaeq6MsQr-BfxnUaN=nn+bynb0a7oju+gw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Would it be OK to distribute those source files ("no-evil") and not
> use them to compile the extension?
Source packages are part of main too and thus should not contain non-free stuff.
--
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/caktje6hyffjobwacujszrct_8bwk83agg4v_bbdjvtck-ns...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#692613: php5: non-free files in upstream tarball ("The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")
Hey,
just to clarify.
Would it be OK to distribute those source files ("no-evil") and not
use them to compile the extension?
Remi from Fedora has prepared patch on top of json-c, which will
replace this extension, so I will patch those files away. I just want
to avoid the dfsg-repacking if possible.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
--
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/CALjhHG_BOCLRo5O0XDhmQi_AkLGV9Yg1KLxeoxxKCaE5V7aU=g...@mail.gmail.com
Re: MIT/Expat with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" statement
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:03:37PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> This situation is a bit confusing because it sounds as though there
> are two files involved, both called "jsmin": "the library" is a
> translation of the original jsmin non-Python library into Python
> ("Good, not Evil" license inherited from the original jsmin non-Python
> library), and "the wrapper" wraps it in a common API (Expat license).
> Is this the case? If so, you must not distribute "the library" but I
> think it's OK to distribute "the wrapper".
Yes. Currently upstream tarball contains only "import jsmin" in wrapper
and outdated LICENSE file.
I'm going to distribute something like this:
--- django-pipeline-1.2.2/pipeline/compressors/jsmin.py.orig2012-03-11
13:04:10.0 +0200
+++ django-pipeline-1.2.2/pipeline/compressors/jsmin.py 2012-04-26
13:59:52.749301910 +0300
@@ -7,5 +7,9 @@
(http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsmin/).
"""
def compress_js(self, js):
-from jsmin import jsmin
-return jsmin(js)
+try:
+from jsmin import jsmin
+return jsmin(js)
+except ImportError:
+# JSMin is not available
+return js
So it should be ok to distribute such package.. Thanks
--
WBR, Dmitry
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: MIT/Expat with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" statement
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:01:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > 2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko : > > > Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors. > > So it's up to users to choose which one to use. > > I see. > > > I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package > > will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper" around non-free > > jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE. > > Sounds good. > > > Is it ok to patch such "jsmin.py" wrapper now to do nothing? > > Unfortunatley not, since the non-free jsmin.py will still be > distributed in the orig.tar.gz unless you unpack it. Hmm. Really? jsmin.py in pacakge is just some "wrapper" code to use JSMin with package: --- from pipeline.compressors import CompressorBase class JSMinCompressor(CompressorBase): """ JS compressor based on the Python library jsmin (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsmin/). """ def compress_js(self, js): from jsmin import jsmin return jsmin(js) --- But some times ago jsmin was distributed in tarball: https://github.com/cyberdelia/django-pipeline/blob/1.1.27/pipeline/compressors/jsmin/jsmin.py And since 1.2 JSMin source was removed from tarball at all. It was replaced with quoted piece of code. The only issue is outdated LICENSE that licenses this wrapper under "Good, not Evil" license. But once this will be be fixed, it should be ok to patch this wrapper without repacking. Am I right? -- WBR, Dmitry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MIT/Expat with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" statement
On 26/04/12 11:41, Dmitry Nezhevenko wrote:
> I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in
> package will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper"
> around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from
> LICENSE.
>
> Is it ok to patch such "jsmin.py" wrapper now to do nothing?
The requirement for main is that you don't cause any non-free code to
be present in the archive: either in the orig.tar.*, the Debian
diff/tarball, or the binary packages. (That's why patching out
non-free code is not OK, because that still results in Debian
distributing one copy of it in the orig.tar.*, and a second copy in
the "-" lines of the Debian diff.)
This situation is a bit confusing because it sounds as though there
are two files involved, both called "jsmin": "the library" is a
translation of the original jsmin non-Python library into Python
("Good, not Evil" license inherited from the original jsmin non-Python
library), and "the wrapper" wraps it in a common API (Expat license).
Is this the case? If so, you must not distribute "the library" but I
think it's OK to distribute "the wrapper".
If that's the case, and the orig tarball doesn't contain an embedded
code copy of "the library", then yes I think you can just patch "the
wrapper".
If your orig tarball does contain an embedded code copy of "the
library", you must still repack the tarball to remove it.
S
--
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/4f992b89.5040...@debian.org
Re: MIT/Expat with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" statement
2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko : > Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors. > So it's up to users to choose which one to use. I see. > I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package > will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper" around non-free > jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE. Sounds good. > Is it ok to patch such "jsmin.py" wrapper now to do nothing? Unfortunatley not, since the non-free jsmin.py will still be distributed in the orig.tar.gz unless you unpack it. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/ -- 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/CAKTje6GaeboT_uQdwGpa-j=ffupocakki2bqstq_tu5ncbl...@mail.gmail.com
Re: MIT/Expat with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" statement
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:24:31PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > I've a few ideas how to at least workaround it: > > - repack upstream tarball and replace jsmin.py with stub one that returns > > original JS without compressing. > > Suboptimal but acceptable in main. I'll follow this way for now > > > - don't repack tarball, just patch this jsmin.py using debian/patches so > > that > > it will not use jsmin at all > > Still non-free, not acceptable in main. > > > Any other suggestions? > > Ask upstream to switc+h to a sanely licensed JavaScript compressor > (there are several). Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors. So it's up to users to choose which one to use. I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper" around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE. Is it ok to patch such "jsmin.py" wrapper now to do nothing? -- WBR, Dmitry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MIT/Expat with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" statement
2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko : > I'm going to package django-pipeline, that is licensed under MIT/Expat > license except one file, that is MIT/Expat too but with one addede > sentence: > https://github.com/cyberdelia/django-pipeline/blob/master/LICENSE > > jsmin.py (License-information from the file) Ah, the infamous (and evil) jsmin license. > So it's probably non-free. Definitely. > I've a few ideas how to at least workaround it: > - repack upstream tarball and replace jsmin.py with stub one that returns > original JS without compressing. Suboptimal but acceptable in main. > - don't repack tarball, just patch this jsmin.py using debian/patches so that > it will not use jsmin at all Still non-free, not acceptable in main. > Any other suggestions? Ask upstream to switch to a sanely licensed JavaScript compressor (there are several). -- 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/caktje6gthwuv0w+hl86za_ztk1smhxvqnov692gneyedd2i...@mail.gmail.com
MIT/Expat with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" statement
Hi, I'm going to package django-pipeline, that is licensed under MIT/Expat license except one file, that is MIT/Expat too but with one addede sentence: https://github.com/cyberdelia/django-pipeline/blob/master/LICENSE jsmin.py (License-information from the file) This code is original from jsmin by Douglas Crockford, it was translated to Python by Baruch Even. The original code had the following copyright and license. Copyright (©) 2002 Douglas Crockford (www.crockford.com) 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. >> The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. 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. So it's probably non-free. But at the same time jsmin.py file in package is just wrapper around jsmin: class JSMinCompressor(CompressorBase): """ JS compressor based on the Python library jsmin (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsmin/). """ def compress_js(self, js): from jsmin import jsmin return jsmin(js) I've a few ideas how to at least workaround it: - repack upstream tarball and replace jsmin.py with stub one that returns original JS without compressing. - don't repack tarball, just patch this jsmin.py using debian/patches so that it will not use jsmin at all Any other suggestions? -- WBR, Dmitry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Hi! Didier 'OdyX' Raboud schrieb: Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: Josselin Mouette schrieb: Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt. Hmmm... Actually... As he didn't gave a definition of "good" or "evil" one could argue, that everything is good... for someone. We must not discriminate against fields of endeavor (so people wanting to do "evil" must be able to), but this license doesn't seem to restrict redistribution, thus making this "Good but no Evil" software suited for non- free, no ? Yes, but as the author didn't define his terms, you can always argue, that whatever you do, is something good (for specific definition of "good"), and one could argue, that this phrase is therefore no restriction at all. A quite philosopher way to argue, therefore: However, I would strongly advise to not package that thing for Debian main; it smells like problems. Or did I misread your message ? Depends on your definition of "read" and "message" ;) (Sorry, could not resist.) Best regards, Alexander -- 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/4bb06f34.5030...@schmehl.info
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Thomas Koch writes: > Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with > crockford himself. Thank you for pursuing this matter in good faith and trying to get a satisfactory resolution. > His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not use > the software." That's a shame. The license terms are trivially non-free, and the vagueness of the terms leads to the chilling effect that they don't help anyone know whether their specific use of the work is infringing the terms or not. A pity that the result wasn't better, but at least it's clear. Hopefully the copyright holder can someday, in spite of evidence to the contrary from his current statements, learn why these terms are non-free and dangerously vague. Thank you again for reporting this decision. -- \ “The lift is being fixed for the day. During that time we | `\regret that you will be unbearable.” —hotel, Bucharest | _o__) | 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/87hbo0nll2@benfinney.id.au
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
> Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with > crockford > himself. His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not > use the software." Then his software will simply be not packaged. -- bye, Joerg http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argument -- 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/87eij4skhy@gkar.ganneff.de
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
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
It looks like the guy makes exceptions anyway: > Douglas: That's an interesting point. Also about once a year, I get a > letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company--I don't > want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I'll just say their > initials--IBM... > > [laughter] > > ...saying that they want to use something I wrote. Because I put this on > everything I write, now. They want to use something that I wrote in > something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren't going to > use it for evil, but they couldn't say for sure about their customers. So > could I give them a special license for that? > > Of course. So I wrote back--this happened literally two weeks ago--"I give > permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for > evil." http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code -- 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/201003262356.44103.vlvtel...@speakeasy.net
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
> The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. Neither term has any objective meaning and there is no shortage of people with philosophy phds willing to state such as their expert opinion. Assuming good and evil are both subjective terms, the license merely states that "The Software" shall be used for some task to be assigned a moral value by a third party at a later point in time. If the author wishes to toss around terms like "good" and "evil" and claim the existence of any higher morality he should establish the grounding for such in the text of the license. It's meaningless claptrap. Ignore it. Sorry, I'm not a DD and know I have no say here. I just couldn't pass this up. JN -- 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/201003262326.08579.vlvtel...@speakeasy.net
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: > Josselin Mouette schrieb: >> Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt. > > Hmmm... Actually... As he didn't gave a definition of "good" or "evil" > one could argue, that everything is good... for someone. > > However, I would strongly advise to not package that thing for Debian > main; it smells like problems. We must not discriminate against fields of endeavor (so people wanting to do "evil" must be able to), but this license doesn't seem to restrict redistribution, thus making this "Good but no Evil" software suited for non- free, no ? Or did I misread your message ? OdyX -- 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/hoj69b$vn...@dough.gmane.org
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Hi! Josselin Mouette schrieb: >> Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with >> crockford >> himself. His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not >> use the software." >> >> Could you please give me a definitive Yes or No for the below license? [..] >> The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. > Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt. Hmmm... Actually... As he didn't gave a definition of "good" or "evil" one could argue, that everything is good... for someone. However, I would strongly advise to not package that thing for Debian main; it smells like problems. Best regards, Alexander, not having his ftp-team hat on signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Josselin Mouette writes: > Le vendredi 26 mars 2010 à 18:43 +0100, Thomas Koch a écrit : >> Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange >> with crockford himself. His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate >> the license, then do not use the software." >> >> Could you please give me a definitive Yes or No for the below license? > >> The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. > > Definitely non-free, and the author's clarification removes any doubt. It is certainly a bizarre licence, and it is clearly best to regard it as non-free. However, I suspect he'd have a very hard time enforcing it in court. IANAL -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com -- 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/yw1xiq8isx7h@unicorn.mansr.com
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Le vendredi 26 mars 2010 à 18:43 +0100, Thomas Koch a écrit : > Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with > crockford > himself. His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not > use the software." > > Could you please give me a definitive Yes or No for the below license? > The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with crockford himself. His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not use the software." Could you please give me a definitive Yes or No for the below license? Best regards, Thomas Koch Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org 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. The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. 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. Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro -- 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/201003261843.50209.tho...@koch.ro
