On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 08:26 +1030, Karl Goetz wrote: > First reply is the only one i got, so i assume theres not to much they > want to add :) > kk
oops, forgot to add a link to the archive: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00181.html kk > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: John Halton > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.] > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:28:45 +0000 > > On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is > the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file: > > ------------------------------------------- > > The following copyright and permission notice applies to the > OpenVision Kerberos Administration system located in kadmin/create, > kadmin/dbutil, kadmin/passwd, kadmin/server, lib/kadm5, and portions > of lib/rpc: > > Copyright, OpenVision Technologies, Inc., 1996, All Rights Reserved > > WARNING: Retrieving the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system > source code, as described below, indicates your acceptance of the > following terms. If you do not agree to the following terms, do not > retrieve the OpenVision Kerberos administration system. > > You may freely use and distribute the Source Code and Object Code > compiled from it, with or without modification, but this Source > Code is provided to you "AS IS" EXCLUSIVE OF ANY WARRANTY, > INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, WHETHER > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. IN NO EVENT WILL OPENVISION HAVE ANY LIABILITY > FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA OR COSTS OF PROCUREMENT OF > SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR > CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING, > WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE SOURCE > CODE, OR THE FAILURE OF THE SOURCE CODE TO PERFORM, OR FOR ANY > OTHER REASON. > > OpenVision retains all copyrights in the donated Source Code. OpenVision > also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether > created by OpenVision or by a third party. The OpenVision copyright > notice must be preserved if derivative works are made based on the > donated Source Code. > > OpenVision Technologies, Inc. has donated this Kerberos > Administration system to MIT for inclusion in the standard > Kerberos 5 distribution. This donation underscores our > commitment to continuing Kerberos technology development > and our gratitude for the valuable work which has been > performed by MIT and the Kerberos community. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Moving on to consider the specific points raised: > > > * line 18-21: "Export of this software from the United States of America > > may require > > a specific license from the United States Government. It is the > > responsibility of any person or organization contemplating export to > > obtain such a license before exporting." > > This section may not suit freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies > > so you can help your neighbor. > > I don't think that clause is a problem. US export laws will (or won't) > apply regardless of what the licence says, so this is really just a > matter of information. It doesn't affect the DFSG-freeness of the > software. > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision > > also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether > > created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat > > this software freedom. > > This is rather an odd one. It's not clear in the context of the > relevant paragraph whether this is just making a statement of fact > about the Source Code as you may be using it, or whether it is seeking > to claim ownership of any modifications that licensees make. If the > latter, then I suspect that in a lot of jurisdictions it will not > actually achieve the desired effect - for example, UK copyright law > requires an assignment of copyright to be in writing and signed by the > assignor. > > The question is then whether this interferes with software freedom. If > you create a derivative work from the software, then (making the *big* > assumption that the clause is legally effective) the copyright in that > work, including your modifications, will vest in OpenVision. However, > you still have the benefit of the licence terms as regards those > modifications, so it doesn't interfere with your freedom on a > practical level. > > What it does potentially mean is that OpenVision can *additionally* > license your modifications under non-free licence terms, which many > developers may consider undesirable. But OpenVision would be taking a > risk if they actually did this, given that it is highly doubtful that > they can claim legal ownership of the copyright in licensees' > modifications on the basis of this licence provision. > > It probably wouldn't hurt to raise this with OpenVision, if possible. > Do they consider this clause to give them ownership of copyright in > any modifications made to the software, or is it simply saying that > your rights under the licence do not affect the ultimate ownership of > the copyright? > > I don't think the DFSG-freeness is affected in either event, but if > OpenVision are trying to claim ownership of modifications then this is > unusual, undesirable and probably ineffective. > > John > > (TINLA) > > -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
