Re: DEP-5 Copyright Question
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:01:03PM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote: You mention that the upstream author *transformed* the image. Mechanical transformations (such as compilation of source code) do not normally have copyright associated with them, so the copyright of cat.pzl would probably be the same as for cat.jpg. yes, would probably... but I think *transformed* image holder is upstream author so copyright belong to him or I'm wrong... That depends what the transformation *is*. You would need to explain how it's been transformed for anyone here to give an educated opinion. Well, it seems upstream-author catch this image and then *transformed* as a .pzl file (puzzle image file) all of this for create jigsaw game. Into upstream source ONLY there are these puzzle images and he mentions about its copyright/licenses, but there aren't jpeg,png... (source files). Right, that's more or less what I thought it would be. It is unlikely that the transformation from a jpg to a puzzle image file includes any creative contribution; if this is an algorithmic transformation, then I believe *only* copyright interest in the .pzl file is from the copyright holder of the original image. If you believe that there is a creative element to the way the .pzl file is being made, then the correct copyright holder would be *both* the copyright holder of the original image *and* the software author who has made the change to the file. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP-5 Copyright Question
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 08:12:28AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: Right, that's more or less what I thought it would be. It is unlikely that the transformation from a jpg to a puzzle image file includes any creative contribution; if this is an algorithmic transformation, then I believe *only* copyright interest in the .pzl file is from the copyright holder of the original image. If you believe that there is a creative element to the way the .pzl file is being made, then the correct copyright holder would be *both* the copyright holder of the original image *and* the software author who has made the change to the file. ok, I'll take your advice Steve. Thanks a lot once again :) I think I've learned a little bit more about this issues. Best regards, -- Elías Alejandro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110723161911.GA2391@debianero
Re: DEP-5 Copyright Question
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 09:11:50PM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote: Dear all, I've just read this thread. What do you think about this [1] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00427.html debian/copyright should list the names of the actual copyright holders of the work. debian-devel is not a great resource for helping you figure out who those copyright holders are, but if the upstream author has already told you who the copyright holder is, you should list that. You mention that the upstream author *transformed* the image. Mechanical transformations (such as compilation of source code) do not normally have copyright associated with them, so the copyright of cat.pzl would probably be the same as for cat.jpg. Add: - Previous Debian release include copyright image owner. - Image license requires link to web site source as a condition. This last part sounds potentially non-free. If this is software that you're planning to include in Debian main, please submit the license to debian-le...@lists.debian.org for public review of its terms. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP-5 Copyright Question
Hi Steve, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:47:25AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: debian/copyright should list the names of the actual copyright holders of the work. debian-devel is not a great resource for helping you figure out who those copyright holders are, but if the upstream author has already told you who the copyright holder is, you should list that. I'm agree with you. You mention that the upstream author *transformed* the image. Mechanical transformations (such as compilation of source code) do not normally have copyright associated with them, so the copyright of cat.pzl would probably be the same as for cat.jpg. yes, would probably... but I think *transformed* image holder is upstream author so copyright belong to him or I'm wrong... Compilation as a process result from sources present in that case I'm agree with you. Add: - Previous Debian release include copyright image owner. - Image license requires link to web site source as a condition. This last part sounds potentially non-free. If this is software that you're planning to include in Debian main, please submit the license to debian-le...@lists.debian.org for public review of its terms. I'll take your advice and I'll ask a question in debian-legal. Thanks a lot. Best regards, -- Elías Alejandro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110722164220.GA2271@debianero
Re: DEP-5 Copyright Question
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:42:20AM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:47:25AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: debian/copyright should list the names of the actual copyright holders of the work. debian-devel is not a great resource for helping you figure out who those copyright holders are, but if the upstream author has already told you who the copyright holder is, you should list that. I'm agree with you. You mention that the upstream author *transformed* the image. Mechanical transformations (such as compilation of source code) do not normally have copyright associated with them, so the copyright of cat.pzl would probably be the same as for cat.jpg. yes, would probably... but I think *transformed* image holder is upstream author so copyright belong to him or I'm wrong... That depends what the transformation *is*. You would need to explain how it's been transformed for anyone here to give an educated opinion. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110722215303.gf...@virgil.dodds.net
Re: DEP-5 Copyright Question
You mention that the upstream author *transformed* the image. Mechanical transformations (such as compilation of source code) do not normally have copyright associated with them, so the copyright of cat.pzl would probably be the same as for cat.jpg. yes, would probably... but I think *transformed* image holder is upstream author so copyright belong to him or I'm wrong... That depends what the transformation *is*. You would need to explain how it's been transformed for anyone here to give an educated opinion. Well, it seems upstream-author catch this image and then *transformed* as a .pzl file (puzzle image file) all of this for create jigsaw game. Into upstream source ONLY there are these puzzle images and he mentions about its copyright/licenses, but there aren't jpeg,png... (source files). Regards, -- Elías Alejandro
Re: DEP-5 Copyright Question
Dear all, I've just read this thread. What do you think about this [1] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00427.html Add: - Previous Debian release include copyright image owner. - Image license requires link to web site source as a condition. Regards, -- Elías Alejandro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110722021150.GA21457@debianero
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:54:14 -0400 Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes: On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400 Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files that are installed by the generated .deb. Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in the copyright file? Auto-generated files can only have the copyright of whatever creative content is provided by a human writer (not the copyright of the tools used in generation). The documentation presumably comes from some kind of source files contained in the source package and presents that same data in a different format. Yes, but it also contains images, style sheets and java script libraries from the rendering tool (Sphinx). So those retain whatever copyright relates to those from the Sphinx package and have nothing to do with the copyright of your package. The copyright of the original data is unaffected (assuming it complies with DFSG), the generated content is basically the distribution of a modified form of the source itself and hence under the same licence as the source itself. Declaring the copyright of the source covers any reformatting of the source which occurs during the building/packaging/distribution process. Even in this case? I don't see that this case is any different to any of my own packages which use tools like doxygen to generate documentation - including adding images, stylesheets and (optionally) javascript - from the comments in the source code. The generated documentation retains my copyright (alongside other upstream authors) because the content comes directly from the copyrighted source code. Simple. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgprNS8AgZbTr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:23:01 -0400 Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: I don't personally think it's interesting or relevant to record in debian/copyright the license of generated files, and there is certainly nothing in Policy that requires you to do this. Why do you ask? My sponsor requested me to add debian/copyright entries for files in the generated HTML documentation. The documentation is generated by Sphinx, and Sphinx adds some templates and js libraries which are then covered (at least that's what I believe) by the Sphinx license rather then the license of the documentation source files. On one hand it makes sense to me that /usr/share/[package]/copyright should contains information about all files in [package]. But on the other hand it doesn't make sense to me to add something like debian/tmp/... into my copyright file... doc/html/* -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpdXkQAhzU3c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org writes: My sponsor requested me to add debian/copyright entries for files in the generated HTML documentation. The documentation is generated by Sphinx, and Sphinx adds some templates and js libraries which are then covered (at least that's what I believe) by the Sphinx license rather then the license of the documentation source files. ..and configure scripts have parts of autotools, Makefile.ins contain code from automake, and even compiled binaries contain stuff that originates from the compiler. I don't think these should be documented in debian/copyright, that'd lead to an endless list, in every single package in the archive. The copyright file should - in my opinion- document the licenses of that single package, not the licenses of itself, and everything else that is used to build it -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwm2fzgj@balabit.hu
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:26:36AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: Hi, ..and configure scripts have parts of autotools, Makefile.ins contain code from automake, and even compiled binaries contain stuff that originates from the compiler. I don't think these should be documented in debian/copyright, that'd lead to an endless list, in every single package in the archive. The copyright file should - in my opinion- document the licenses of that single package, not the licenses of itself, and everything else that is used to build it It's obvious that it's a very tedious task to look into *every* file to document every copyright statement. IIRC the maintainer for bigger packages already ranted about that the last time this has been discussed. My own experience so far was that you often find unclear or otherwise strange copyright notes. I would even go so far to conclude that a lot of OSS developers are rather sloppy when it comes to copyright assignments, license checks. Let alone the use of the GPL file header for every source file. The question is what should be achieved with d/copyright? Give just a short overview over the main parts of the package or a complete overview of the complete package contents? Since http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html I try to document every file with a copyright statement even if it's auto generated. After all someone could reuse it as it is. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110719085418.ga23...@niap.stormbind.net
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
Sven Hoexter s...@timegate.de writes: The question is what should be achieved with d/copyright? Give just a short overview over the main parts of the package or a complete overview of the complete package contents? My understanding is, that it should be a complete overview of the source licenses. I do not treat generated files as source, because, well... they're not. They might come in the source tarball, like the autotools-generated stuff usually do, but they're still generated, and I still wouldn't consider them part of the source. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bowqfxaj@balabit.hu
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
Le Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:13:24AM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit : My understanding is, that it should be a complete overview of the source licenses. I do not treat generated files as source, because, well... they're not. They might come in the source tarball, like the autotools-generated stuff usually do, but they're still generated, and I still wouldn't consider them part of the source. Hi Gergely, note that it is difficult to know if a file was auto-generated without inspecting it. In the past I was routinely ignoring the m4 folders as I thought they only contained files distributed with Autoconf, but recently I realised that they also contain original works under a variety of copyrights and licenses… Luckily, when files are autogenerated, it is not much work for you: - If their source is distributed in the same source package, it is not needed to repeat their copyrights and licenses. The DEP 5 format provides with its Files field an easy way to include them them with to the description of their source. - If their source is distributed in another Debian package, you can cut and paste from this package's copyright file. For the files distributed in autoconf packages, it seems informally accepted to ignore them completely. But there are no written guidelines explaining how this tolerance can be expanded or not to other autogenerated files. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110719233910.ga4...@merveille.plessy.net
DEP5 Copyright Question
Hi, I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files that are installed by the generated .deb. Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in the copyright file? If they have to be included: isn't that slightly inconsistent? If one wants to have the copyright for all *installed* files (rather than all shipped files), shouldn't the files then also be listed relative to the system root (rather than the source package directory)? Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k4bfto5e@inspiron.ap.columbia.edu
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400 Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files that are installed by the generated .deb. Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in the copyright file? Auto-generated files can only have the copyright of whatever creative content is provided by a human writer (not the copyright of the tools used in generation). The documentation presumably comes from some kind of source files contained in the source package and presents that same data in a different format. The copyright of the original data is unaffected (assuming it complies with DFSG), the generated content is basically the distribution of a modified form of the source itself and hence under the same licence as the source itself. Declaring the copyright of the source covers any reformatting of the source which occurs during the building/packaging/distribution process. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpBaGPtVajqF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:54:53PM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files that are installed by the generated .deb. Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in the copyright file? If they have to be included: isn't that slightly inconsistent? If one wants to have the copyright for all *installed* files (rather than all shipped files), shouldn't the files then also be listed relative to the system root (rather than the source package directory)? DEP5 does not require per-file recording of copyright and license information, it merely provides a facility for doing so where this is interesting or relevant. I don't personally think it's interesting or relevant to record in debian/copyright the license of generated files, and there is certainly nothing in Policy that requires you to do this. Why do you ask? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:54:53PM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files that are installed by the generated .deb. Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in the copyright file? If they have to be included: isn't that slightly inconsistent? If one wants to have the copyright for all *installed* files (rather than all shipped files), shouldn't the files then also be listed relative to the system root (rather than the source package directory)? DEP5 does not require per-file recording of copyright and license information, it merely provides a facility for doing so where this is interesting or relevant. I don't personally think it's interesting or relevant to record in debian/copyright the license of generated files, and there is certainly nothing in Policy that requires you to do this. Why do you ask? My sponsor requested me to add debian/copyright entries for files in the generated HTML documentation. The documentation is generated by Sphinx, and Sphinx adds some templates and js libraries which are then covered (at least that's what I believe) by the Sphinx license rather then the license of the documentation source files. On one hand it makes sense to me that /usr/share/[package]/copyright should contains information about all files in [package]. But on the other hand it doesn't make sense to me to add something like debian/tmp/... into my copyright file... Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8762mzi36y@vostro.rath.org
Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes: On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400 Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote: I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files that are installed by the generated .deb. Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in the copyright file? Auto-generated files can only have the copyright of whatever creative content is provided by a human writer (not the copyright of the tools used in generation). The documentation presumably comes from some kind of source files contained in the source package and presents that same data in a different format. Yes, but it also contains images, style sheets and java script libraries from the rendering tool (Sphinx). The copyright of the original data is unaffected (assuming it complies with DFSG), the generated content is basically the distribution of a modified form of the source itself and hence under the same licence as the source itself. Declaring the copyright of the source covers any reformatting of the source which occurs during the building/packaging/distribution process. Even in this case? Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8739i3i1qx@vostro.rath.org
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Le Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:26:55PM -0500, Joey Hess a écrit : Riku Voipio wrote: I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material. Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation (such as libjpeg's). Obviously most distributors/boob writers will not notice such lists, but that's a different problem... Most writers don't have to worry about it, it's not as if we advertise Debian as Debian.. now with Thomas G. Lane's JPEG support and OpenSSL. The advertisement clause tries to not allow those specific attributions to be used in advertisements; it does NOT require that advertisements contain any specific list of citations. Actually, this is true for libjpeg and false for openssl and other programs using similar BSD-related clauses. libjpeg: Permission is NOT granted for the use of any IJG author's name or company name in advertising or publicity relating to this software or products derived from it. This software may be referred to only as the Independent JPEG Group's software. openssl: All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/) Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:34:53PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors, I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material. Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation (such as libjpeg's). Obviously most distributors/boob writers will not notice such lists, but that's a different problem... Anyway, I really think that there are good chances to obtain a relicencing, that is by far the best way to find a solution that pleases everybody. This is even better, but it can pontially take a very long time. I believe it has bee requested from OpenSSL people years ago.. -- rm -rf only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Riku Voipio wrote: I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material. Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation (such as libjpeg's). Obviously most distributors/boob writers will not notice such lists, but that's a different problem... Most writers don't have to worry about it, it's not as if we advertise Debian as Debian.. now with Thomas G. Lane's JPEG support and OpenSSL. The advertisement clause tries to not allow those specific attributions to be used in advertisements; it does NOT require that advertisements contain any specific list of citations. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete information. There was more than one BSD license in use well before USB's Office of Technology Licensing withdrew the 4-clause version. [snip] While this is very interesting (I was aware of some of this, but not all of it), and I appreciate the time that you took to write it up, I think that: http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license shows that indeed the original BSD license to which the DFSG was linked was the four-clause version. (Thanks to Charles Plessey for uncovering that.) The version in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is very specifically the UCB version, not any of the other versions, and my assumption was that that had historically also been the case (since it wouldn't make sense to me to move from a less specific copyright holder to a more specific one). I haven't taken the trouble to browse ancient FreeBSD CVS repositories to see when the FreeBSD committers started actually applying their 2-clause variant, but I hope you'll concede that it's much more likely than you thought it was, given that Hubbard's language (quite some time now) and this evidence that BSD licenses without the advertising clause were in use a year and a half before you thought they were. Certainly agreed; however, I was specifically talking about the UCB version as seen in /usr/share/common-licenses, so I was really being inaccurate with my original statement. (I have heard rumors that the OTL was in large part persuaded to drop the advertising clause because of threatened counter-litigation by a party that was violating it, who made an apparently strong argument that the clause was unenforceable under U.S. law. Unfortunately, despite poking around for this over the years and talking to some luminaries who might have been aware of it--though not William Hoskins himself--I have been unable to substantiate it. If this turns out to be true, Debian should not be recommending as a best practice licensing provisions which are legally void significant jurisdictions like the United States.) Note that I have never argued that Debian should be recommending the four-clause BSD license as best licensing practice. It manifestly isn't. Only that it is and has been DFSG-free since the beginning of the concept. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Am I missing something? This ? http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license http://web.archive.org/web/20001205083200/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license That would certainly seem to indicate that I'm correct. Looks like, when the DFSG was adopted, the license to which it linked was the original four-clause BSD license. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
[You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both lists.] On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete information. There was more than one BSD license in use well before USB's Office of Technology Licensing withdrew the 4-clause version. [snip] While this is very interesting (I was aware of some of this, but not all of it), and I appreciate the time that you took to write it up, I think that: http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license shows that indeed the original BSD license to which the DFSG was linked was the four-clause version. (Thanks to Charles Plessey for uncovering that.) The version in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is very specifically the UCB version, A major point of this whole discussion is that there is no the UCB version. There have been multiple BSD licenses, even promulgated by the single source we call the University of California at Berkeley. not any of the other versions, and my assumption was that that had historically also been the case (since it wouldn't make sense to me to move from a less specific copyright holder to a more specific one). [...] Certainly agreed; however, I was specifically talking about the UCB version as seen in /usr/share/common-licenses, so I was really being inaccurate with my original statement. The copyright line in /usr/share/common-licenses should be made generic, or better yet, not even be present. Much of the benefit of the common-licenses directory is lost if it can serve as a stand-in for particular licenses *as applied by particular copyright holders*. (I have heard rumors that the OTL was in large part persuaded to drop the advertising clause because of threatened counter-litigation by a party that was violating it, who made an apparently strong argument that the clause was unenforceable under U.S. law. Unfortunately, despite poking around for this over the years and talking to some luminaries who might have been aware of it--though not William Hoskins himself--I have been unable to substantiate it. If this turns out to be true, Debian should not be recommending as a best practice licensing provisions which are legally void significant jurisdictions like the United States.) Note that I have never argued that Debian should be recommending the four-clause BSD license as best licensing practice. It manifestly isn't. Only that it is and has been DFSG-free since the beginning of the concept. First, I think you are reading far more deliberation into where the Debian Project has pointed web links in the past, and what it's put into /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, than is warranted. If I were to write some code and license it under the BSD license (in the terms spelled out in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD), package it, and have my debian/copyright file refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, that would not mean that the Regents hold the copyright on my code, nor would such an action on my part transfer the copyright to them. Secondly, phraseology like is and has been (and will be for all time! usually follows in arguments like this), denies the very real phenomenon that humans learn over time. It would not surprise me if a majority of Debian Developers in 1997, if surveyed on the subject, would hold the 4-clause BSD license to be DFSG-free (with degrees of passion ranging from yeah, I guess so to hell, yeah! It's way better than that GPL crap![1]). I would suggest that our experiences with the GNU FDL, and with the XFree86's projects relicensing of its code base, have taught us just how onerous mandatory invariant testimonials can be. While some folks may feel that Debian was an outlier with respect to our dissent on the GNU FDL front, it's pretty difficult to make that argument about the revised XFree86 license, whose resemblance to the 4-clause BSD license is much more clear. (In fact, that was one of David Dawes's ultimately futile arguments for trying to get the community to accept his license as free.) If I'm not mistaken, I have argued on -legal in the past that having section 10 of the DFSG has turned out to be a bad idea, because people misread examples as paragons. I think it is instructive that every single license we identified in 1997 as a good example of a free software license has seen significant revision. The 4-clause BSD license has evolved into 3-clause and 2-clause variants, dropping various restrictions; the Perl folks came up with a Clarified Artistic license several years ago, and of course there is the case of the GNU GPL v3. Moreover, these license exemplars have been revised *by their original promulgators*. Consequently, I do not think you can argue that the supersession of the licenses we originally identified as examples in 1997 is the work of upstarts who
Copyright question
Hi, I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the following statements: -- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? Regards, Jean -- Nul ne sera condamné pour des actions ou omissions qui, au moment où elles ont été commises, ne constituaient pas un acte délictueux d'après le droit national ou international. De même, il ne sera infligé aucune peine plus forte que celle qui était applicable au moment où l'acte délictueux a été commis. Article 11.2. Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme - No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 11.2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights begin:vcard fn:Jean Parpaillon n:Parpaillon;Jean org:Kerlabs adr:;;;Rennes;;;France email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:+33 2 99 84 25 99 tel;cell:+33 6 80 32 73 85 version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Copyright question
[Please follow up to -legal only. Full quote for the benefit of -legal.] On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon wrote: Hi, I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the following statements: -- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? This is a standard BSD-with-advertising-clause, so yes, this is DFSG-free. Only DFSG-free material may go in main or contrib; material that does not meet the DFSG must go in non-free. Also note that due to the advertising clause (clause 3), this license is not compatible with the GPL. In future, please post questions about copyright and licenses to -legal, where the regulars are well versed. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright question
On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote: 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? See http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses, BSD-3 (without point 3.) isn't a problem. The advertising requirement (3.) is a problem, though. Note that if a package isn't DFSG-free, it can't go to contrib either. Contrib is for DFSG-free material depending on non-free (or contrib in turn) stuff, see Policy 2.2.2. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpCQ2mURhche.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright question
Hi Jean! You wrote: I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the following statements: -- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? Why is that probematic? It seems like a default 4-clause BSD license to me. Should be fine, unless you intend to link it against GPL code. Kind regards, Bas. -- +--+ | Bas Zoetekouw | Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright, | || The bridall of the earth and skie: | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The dew shall weep thy fall tonight;| +|For thou must die. | +-+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question
On 06/02/2008, Sebastian Harl wrote: Just to make this clear […] Yep, thank you (all) for clarifying that, sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpFkxYGMPJdq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon a écrit : 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. Bonjour Jean, This is the advertisement clause of the original BSD licence. Some works in main are or were distributed under this clause, so it is considered DFSG-Free. However, distributors of Debian can easily infringe this clause: for instance, if an hypothetical magazine, Clusterised Linux would sell an issue with a DVD of Debian Lenny and advertise it with a slogan such as Debian Lenny: faster with upgraded kernel and HPL memory distribution, the university of Tenessee could obviously claim that the licence has not been respected because their name has not been cited. This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this reason, I wouldn't recommend to include this program in main. But there is a much better solution. The problem has been well explained on FSF's website: http://www.gnu.org//philosophy/bsd.html and importantly, the university of Berkeley from which this licence originates has now abandonned the advertisement clause. This is a strong argument, and with it I was able to obtain the relicencing of a 4-clause-BSD-licenced program by the Whitehead Institute. I think that you have your chances with the university of Tenessee. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian-Med packaging team. Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this reason, I wouldn't recommend to include this program in main. There is already much software in Debian main with this license and other Debian Developers who do not agree with this and who will continue to include such software in Debian main. (It is, after all specifically called out as a free license in the Debian Free Software Guidelines.) So the practical impact for a Debian derivative of including or not including one more package with the four-clause BSD license is minimal. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:44:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this reason, I wouldn't recommend to include this program in main. There is already much software in Debian main with this license and other Debian Developers who do not agree with this and who will continue to include such software in Debian main. (It is, after all specifically called out as a free license in the Debian Free Software Guidelines.) So the practical impact for a Debian derivative of including or not including one more package with the four-clause BSD license is minimal. Hi Russ, I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors, who are the most likely persons to infringe the clause. We should remeber that for other aspects of licencing and intellectual property management, Debian is much more rigorous, so the presence of 4-clauses BSD licences is contradicting the principle of least surprise, that is usually a good guidance. Importantly, the copyright holders of such programs are often not the programmers themselves, but the universities, who nowardays face very strong financial pressures and delegate more and more the management of the intellecutal property to specialised services, who can be ran by people who know nothing about the spirit of free software that blessed the researchers when they wrote their programs. This is why, as a personnal choice, I do not take the responsability of introducing new packages with the BSD advertisement clause in Debian, and I suggest others to refrain as well. Anyway, I really think that there are good chances to obtain a relicencing, that is by far the best way to find a solution that pleases everybody. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors, who are the most likely persons to infringe the clause. We should remeber that for other aspects of licencing and intellectual property management, Debian is much more rigorous, so the presence of 4-clauses BSD licences is contradicting the principle of least surprise, that is usually a good guidance. I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable licenses in the DFSG. But regardless, practically speaking, the inclusion of one more or fewer package in main with an advertising clause will make no practical difference for the requirements of any redistributor. Any serious attempt to eliminate this license from Debian would face other challenges first, such as removing OpenSSL from main. Unless someone has a plan to do that, which strikes me as unlikely, I disagree with an implication that including another package with this license would cause any additional problems for Debian redistributors. I have no problem with your other arguments against the 4-clause BSD license. I'm not arguing that it's a good license. But since you were giving advice to someone who is new to licensing issues, I wanted to clarify that including one more package with this license would not cause any noticable hardship for redistributors compared to what they already would need to deal with. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable licenses in the DFSG. The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable license. DFSG URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract §10: 10. Example Licenses The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that we consider free. That text isn't specific about *which* BSD license is an example of a free license. However, in that text, the term 'BSD' is an anchor to URL:http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license, which is a copy of the 3-clause BSD license, without advertising clause. That seems explicit that it's the version given as an example of a free license. It would perhaps be better for the DFSG to disambiguate BSD license in the text of the DFSG, but the hyperlink to the 3-clause BSD license without advertising clause serves the purpose in this instance. -- \ “It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in | `\ trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so.” —Artemus | _o__) Ward (1834-67), U.S. journalist | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable license. DFSG URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract §10: 10. Example Licenses The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that we consider free. That text isn't specific about *which* BSD license is an example of a free license. However, in that text, the term 'BSD' is an anchor to URL:http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license, which is a copy of the 3-clause BSD license, without advertising clause. That seems explicit that it's the version given as an example of a free license. Hm, I could have sworn that the DFSG predated the Constitution and hence predated the existence of the three-clause BSD license. UCB dropped the advertising clause in July of 1999 and the DFSG were adopted in July of 1997 according to Wikipedia. Hence, I assumed the BSD license as referred to in the DFSG must, regardless of what the web site currently links to, actually refer to the 4-clause license since that's the only thing that existed at the time. Am I missing something? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Am I missing something? This ? http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license http://web.archive.org/web/20001205083200/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
copyright question
I would like to package a set of large mouse cursor fonts for X. These are useful on a laptop, where the cursor's hard to see. The fonts appear to be the standard X cursor fonts, scaled up by certian factors (so they are a little blocky). As such, I expect they come under the same license as the X fonts, since they were generated by a mechanical operation on them. Also, looking inside the fonts, I see: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/fontsstrings cursor1.5.pcf |head -2 COPYRIGHT These glyphs are unencumbered Just like you see inside the standard X fonts: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/fontszcat /usr/lib/X11/fonts/misc/cursor.pcf.gz |strings |head -2 COPYRIGHT These glyphs are unencumbered However, I have no information about where these fonts came from (I got the tar file from someone on #debian on irc, who didn't remember where he got it, and I've since forgotten his name -- if whoever that was reads this, please get in contact with me.), or any real copyright information. I wonder if what I have is sufficient to get the package into debian? -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
intent to package: coda (+ copyright question)
I'm looking into packaging CMU's coda distributed filesystem. It is based on AFS, with enhancements to allow disconnected use. There are kernel drivers for it in the 2.1.x series and they are available as patches for the 2.0.x series. Seeing that there are other kernel module packages available for the distributed 2.0.x kernel, would it be useful to package up a kernel-module of coda for 2.0? (I'll probably look in to that as well... Though I tend to be on the bleeding edge myself.) Now, on to the copyright question. The following is an excerpt from one file (coda-src/vice/srvproc.cc to be exact). The CMU licence does not seem to pose a problem, but the IBM notice is rather unclear. The only thing that is obvious is that CMU can distribute the source. It would also appear that derrived works are allowed. Thoughts please... Regards, /Anders ---8--- /* Coda: an Experimental Distributed File System Release 4.0 Copyright (c) 1987-1996 Carnegie Mellon University All Rights Reserved Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its documentation is hereby granted, provided that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies of the software, derivative works or modified versions, and any portions thereof, and that both notices appear in supporting documentation, and that credit is given to Carnegie Mellon University in all documents and publicity pertaining to direct or indirect use of this code or its derivatives. CODA IS AN EXPERIMENTAL SOFTWARE SYSTEM AND IS KNOWN TO HAVE BUGS, SOME OF WHICH MAY HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. CARNEGIE MELLON ALLOWS FREE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE IN ITS AS IS CONDITION. CARNEGIE MELLON DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY OF ANY KIND FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE OR OF ANY DERIVATIVE WORK. Carnegie Mellon encourages users of this software to return any improvements or extensions that they make, and to grant Carnegie Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes without encumbrance. */ static char *rcsid = $Header: /afs/cs/project/coda-src/cvs/coda/coda-src/vice/ s rvproc.cc,v 4.10 1998/01/12 23:35:42 braam Exp $; #endif /*_BLURB_*/ /* IBM COPYRIGHT NOTICE Copyright (C) 1986 International Business Machines Corporation All Rights Reserved This file contains some code identical to or derived from the 1986 version of the Andrew File System (AFS), which is owned by the IBM Corporation.This code is provded AS IS and IBM does not warrant that it is free of infringement of any intellectual rights of any third party.IBM disclaims liability of any kind for any damages whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly from use of this software or of any derivative work. Carnegie Mellon University has obtained permission to distribute this code, which is based on Version 2 of AFS and does not contain the features and enhancements that are part of Version 3 of AFS. Version 3 of AFS is commercially available and supported by Transarc Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA. */ ---8--- -- -- This message specially handmade by the imps of the Couterweight Continent Anders Hammarquist, Mandolingatan 5, S-421 40 Västra Frölunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intent to package: coda (+ copyright question)
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Anders Hammarquist wrote: I'm looking into packaging CMU's coda distributed filesystem. It is based on AFS, with enhancements to allow disconnected use. There are kernel drivers for it in the 2.1.x series and they are available as patches for the 2.0.x series. Seeing that there are other kernel module packages available for the distributed 2.0.x kernel, would it be useful to package up a kernel-module of coda for 2.0? (I'll probably look in to that as well... Though I tend to be on the bleeding edge myself.) Now, on to the copyright question. The following is an excerpt from one file (coda-src/vice/srvproc.cc to be exact). The CMU licence does not seem to pose a problem, but the IBM notice is rather unclear. The only thing that is obvious is that CMU can distribute the source. It would also appear that derrived works are allowed. Thoughts please... Regards, /Anders snip The first part seems dfsg compliant to me. IBM COPYRIGHT NOTICE Copyright (C) 1986 International Business Machines Corporation All Rights Reserved This file contains some code identical to or derived from the 1986 version of the Andrew File System (AFS), which is owned by the IBM Corporation.This code is provded AS IS and IBM does not warrant that it is free of infringement of any intellectual rights of any third party.IBM disclaims liability of any kind for any damages whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly from use of this software or of any derivative work. Carnegie Mellon University has obtained permission to distribute this code, which is based on Version 2 of AFS and does not contain the features and enhancements that are part of Version 3 of AFS. Version 3 of AFS is commercially available and supported by Transarc Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA. The way I read this, it is only a disclaimer and a statement that says CMU has permission to distribute the software. It does not impose any restrictions on modification or distribution of the code. But I am not a lawyer. Remco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intent to package: coda (+ copyright question)
Anders Hammarquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This file contains some code identical to or derived from the 1986 version of the Andrew File System (AFS), which is owned by the IBM Corporation.This code is provded AS IS and IBM does not warrant that it is free of infringement of any intellectual rights of any third party.IBM disclaims liability of any kind for any damages whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly from use of this software or of any derivative work. Carnegie Mellon University has obtained permission to distribute this code, which is based on Version 2 of AFS and does not contain the features and enhancements that are part of Version 3 of AFS. Version 3 of AFS is commercially available and supported by Transarc Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA. I think it's clear the intent is to say that CMU is legally distributing AFS. the terms under which CMU is distributing it are as stated above and are DFSG compliant. I think that's all we're concerned with: the terms under which our users can use, modify, and distribute the software. So IBM owns the copyright, they gave CMU the right to distribute their code under the above terms, and we received the software under those terms from CMU. Actually the situation is a little more convoluted than that. AFS was originally developped at CMU. Some students started a comany to develop and market it, to which CMU gave the rights to AFS with the proviso that CMU have the rights mentioned above. Later IBM bought this company, so we end up with the above strange situation. greg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intent to package: coda (+ copyright question)
I think it's clear the intent is to say that CMU is legally distributing AFS. the terms under which CMU is distributing it are as stated above and are DFSG compliant. I think that's all we're concerned with: the terms under which our users can use, modify, and distribute the software. So IBM owns the copyright, they gave CMU the right to distribute their code under the above terms, and we received the software under those terms from CMU. OK, that's what I thought they were trying to say as well, though it didn't appear clear to me. I guess I can put it into main then. Actually the situation is a little more convoluted than that. AFS was originally developped at CMU. Some students started a comany to develop and market it, to which CMU gave the rights to AFS with the proviso that CMU have the rights mentioned above. Later IBM bought this company, so we end up with the above strange situation. Oh, I know quite a bit about AFS and DFS. Even had a guy from Transarc try to sell it to me at my previous job. Hopefully Coda can become all that AFS never managed (yes, I'm probably dreaming...) Regards, /Anders -- -- Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Anders Hammarquist | Mud at Kingdoms| [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetGuide Scandinavia | telnet kingdoms.se 1812| Fax: +46 31 50 79 39 http://www.netg.se | | Tel: +46 31 50 79 40 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 22:08 BST James Troup writes: David Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Das Aendern des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Das gilt sowohl fuer den Inhalt als auch fuer das Dateiformat bzw. die Gestaltung. Auch das Entfernen unliebsamer Passagen ist nicht erlaubt. Changing is now allowed. This applies to the contents, the file format resp. layout. The removing of disagreeable passages is not allowed. s/now/not/; a rather significant change :-) You're right. I probably was tired about typing so many types '...not allowed to...' (cc'ing to debian-devel for completeness). David -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 23:08 +0200 Martin Schulze writes: David Frey writes: On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes: Any comments? (Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e.g. dutch or polish]) *smile* Some german people have problems understanding swiss people, too. :-) *smile* But only if they live too far in the north. Our Bavarian neighbours don't have this problem at least. ;-) David / The good thing about standards is / / that there are so many to choose from. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum / ^^^ Wasn't this IBM? -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On Jun 25, David Frey wrote *smile* Some german people have problems understanding swiss people, too. :-) *smile* But only if they live too far in the north. Our Bavarian neighbours don't have this problem at least. ;-) you can understand a bavarian ? hey, most german can't do that. :-) regards, andreas -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
David Frey wrote: PS: Has somebody found a good online dictionary? (A dictionary e.g. French/English, German/English, not only a word-list) http://www2.echo.lu/edic/, the technical dictionary published by the General Directorate XIII of the European Union, is great. You can chose source and target language as any of the EU languages, get definitions of terms, and chose the subject areas you're interested in. -- Thomas Koenig, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Copyright question
Hi! I've got a copyright question. The selfhtml (doc section) package, that I'll release the next days, has got a copyright that forbid changing the files. Should I put the package in unstable/stable or in non-free? In my opinion the package should go to unstable/stable because it's not necessary to change something in a documentation only package. Any comments? Copyright = Dieses Dokument ist Freeware im Sinne des Software-Lizenzrechts. Die Regeln im einzelnen: * Das Kopieren und Weitergeben des Dokuments ist erlaubt. * Das Veroeffentlichen auf WWW-Servern, Online-Diensten oder Mailboxen ist erlaubt. * Das Veroeffentlichen auf Datentraegern wie CD-ROMs ist erlaubt, auch wenn diese Datentraeger kommerziell orientiert sind. * Das Aendern des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Das gilt sowohl fuer den Inhalt als auch fuer das Dateiformat bzw. die Gestaltung. Auch das Entfernen unliebsamer Passagen ist nicht erlaubt. * Das Dokument muss stets in der vorliegenden Form und vollstaendig kopiert, weitergegeben oder anderweitig veroefftentlicht werden - das Kopieren, Weitergeben oder Veroeffentlichen von Teilen des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Massgeblich hierfuer ist die Download-Datei. * Das Veroeffentlichen des Dokuments auf WWW-Servern oder Datentraegern im Zusammenhang mit illegalem pornografischem Material oder nazistischem Gedankengut ist unerwuenscht und wird bei Entdeckung juristisch verfolgt. Wenn Sie dieses Dokument an einer neuen Stelle im WWW plazieren oder an anderer Stelle publizieren wollen, besorgen Sie sich das Dokument an einer der Stellen zum Downloaden. Da das Dokument bereits an so vielen Adressen im WWW steht, uebernimmt der Autor hierfuer keine Betreuung. Bei Veroeffentlichung auf CD-ROM oder vergleichbaren Datentraegern ist es eine feine Geste, dem Autor ein Belegexemplar zukommen zu lassen. Senden Sie dieses per Post an TeamOne, z.Hd. Stefan Muenz, Kistlerhofstr. 111, D-81379 Muenchen. cu, Marco -- Uni: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fido: 2:240/5202.15 Mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
RE: Copyright question
The way I read it the copyright just forbids to change the doc files itself. There is no problem adding our packages files etc. Even renaming the source tree is not forbidden. So I'd say put it in the core distribution. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes, Projekt-Manager| topsystem Systemhaus GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 52146 Wuerselen Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44 Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 8:25 AM To:debian-devel@lists.debian.org Cc:Die Adresse des Empfängers ist unbekannt. Subject: Copyright question Hi! I've got a copyright question. The selfhtml (doc section) package, that I'll release the next days, has got a copyright that forbid changing the files. Should I put the package in unstable/stable or in non-free? In my opinion the package should go to unstable/stable because it's not necessary to change something in a documentation only package. Any comments? Copyright = Dieses Dokument ist Freeware im Sinne des Software-Lizenzrechts. Die Regeln im einzelnen: * Das Kopieren und Weitergeben des Dokuments ist erlaubt. * Das Veroeffentlichen auf WWW-Servern, Online-Diensten oder Mailboxen ist erlaubt. * Das Veroeffentlichen auf Datentraegern wie CD-ROMs ist erlaubt, auch wenn diese Datentraeger kommerziell orientiert sind. * Das Aendern des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Das gilt sowohl fuer den Inhalt als auch fuer das Dateiformat bzw. die Gestaltung. Auch das Entfernen unliebsamer Passagen ist nicht erlaubt. * Das Dokument muss stets in der vorliegenden Form und vollstaendig kopiert, weitergegeben oder anderweitig veroefftentlicht werden - das Kopieren, Weitergeben oder Veroeffentlichen von Teilen des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Massgeblich hierfuer ist die Download-Datei. * Das Veroeffentlichen des Dokuments auf WWW-Servern oder Datentraegern im Zusammenhang mit illegalem pornografischem Material oder nazistischem Gedankengut ist unerwuenscht und wird bei Entdeckung juristisch verfolgt. Wenn Sie dieses Dokument an einer neuen Stelle im WWW plazieren oder an anderer Stelle publizieren wollen, besorgen Sie sich das Dokument an einer der Stellen zum Downloaden. Da das Dokument bereits an so vielen Adressen im WWW steht, uebernimmt der Autor hierfuer keine Betreuung. Bei Veroeffentlichung auf CD-ROM oder vergleichbaren Datentraegern ist es eine feine Geste, dem Autor ein Belegexemplar zukommen zu lassen. Senden Sie dieses per Post an TeamOne, z.Hd. Stefan Muenz, Kistlerhofstr. 111, D-81379 Muenchen. cu, Marco -- Uni: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fido: 2:240/5202.15 Mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
RE: Copyright question
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote: The way I read it the copyright just forbids to change the doc files itself. There is no problem adding our packages files etc. Even renaming the source tree is not forbidden. So I'd say put it in the core distribution. No, I disagree here. At least for software, we must be allowed to change the source code. This has been discussed in detail in the last days. Thus, if this would be software (i.e. source code for a program) it would not be possible to include it in any distribution! I'm not sure if we can make exceptions for a doc-only package. Thanks, Chris -- Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don't know Perl? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA http://www.perl.com http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes: Any comments? (Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e.g. dutch or polish]) Copyright = Dieses Dokument ist Freeware im Sinne des Software-Lizenzrechts. Die Regeln im einzelnen: (My translation is rough) This document is freeware in the sense of software license law. The rules are according to: * Das Kopieren und Weitergeben des Dokuments ist erlaubt. Copying and giving away of the document is allowed. * Das Veroeffentlichen auf WWW-Servern, Online-Diensten oder Mailboxen ist erlaubt. Publishing on WWW-Servers, Online-services or mailboxes is allowed. * Das Veroeffentlichen auf Datentraegern wie CD-ROMs ist erlaubt, auch wenn diese Datentraeger kommerziell orientiert sind. Publishing on CD-ROMs is allowed, even if the media is commercially oriented. * Das Aendern des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Das gilt sowohl fuer den Inhalt als auch fuer das Dateiformat bzw. die Gestaltung. Auch das Entfernen unliebsamer Passagen ist nicht erlaubt. Changing is now allowed. This applies to the contents, the file format resp. layout. The removing of disagreeable passages is not allowed. * Das Dokument muss stets in der vorliegenden Form und vollstaendig kopiert, weitergegeben oder anderweitig veroefftentlicht werden - das Kopieren, Weitergeben oder Veroeffentlichen von Teilen des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Massgeblich hierfuer ist die Download-Datei. The document has always to be copied, given away or published in the given state in full. Copying, giving away or publishing of parts of this document is forbidden. Authorative is the file to download. * Das Veroeffentlichen des Dokuments auf WWW-Servern oder Datentraegern im Zusammenhang mit illegalem pornografischem Material oder nazistischem Gedankengut ist unerwuenscht und wird bei Entdeckung juristisch verfolgt. Publishing this document on WWW-servers or data media in the contents with illegal pornographic material or Nazi-ideology is not desired and will be juristically prosecuted on discovery. (Not a problem for us, David) Wenn Sie dieses Dokument an einer neuen Stelle im WWW plazieren oder an anderer Stelle publizieren wollen, besorgen Sie sich das Dokument an einer der Stellen zum Downloaden. Da das Dokument bereits an so vielen Adressen im WWW steht, uebernimmt der Autor hierfuer keine Betreuung. If you intend to place/publish this document on a new place in the WWW, get the document at one of the places to download. Since the document is already on so much places on the WWW, the author takes no responsability. Bei Veroeffentlichung auf CD-ROM oder vergleichbaren Datentraegern ist es eine feine Geste, dem Autor ein Belegexemplar zukommen zu lassen. Senden Sie dieses per Post an TeamOne, z.Hd. Stefan Muenz, Kistlerhofstr. 111, D-81379 Muenchen. If you publish on CD-ROM or aequivalent media it would be nice to send an complimentary exemplary to the author. Send it via mail to: ... Conclusion: only the last paragraph is hairy. David PS: Has somebody found a good online dictionary? (A dictionary e.g. French/English, German/English, not only a word-list) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
David Frey writes:
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes:
Any comments?
(Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone
reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e.g.
dutch or polish])
*smile* Some german people have problems understanding swiss people, too. :-)
PS: Has somebody found a good online dictionary? (A dictionary e.g.
French/English, German/English, not only a word-list)
Try this one
lexi=()
{
lynx http://wais.leo.org/cgi-bin/dict-search?search=$1;
}
A copy should run on www.i-connect.net
Regards
Joey
--
/ Martin Schulze * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 26129 Oldenburg /
/ The good thing about standards is /
/ that there are so many to choose from. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum /
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes: From: Enrique Zanardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. That puts it in non-free. OK, I have gotten some replies from the author regarding copyright issues. Does it still belong in non-free? (It appears his intent is basically to keep companies from charging for it...) Below is the copyright file I'm distributing with it: This package was debianized by John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 31 May 1997 13:05:05 -0500. It was downloaded from ta.twi.tudelft.nl/pub/dv/lemmens. [ Note: Debian currently doesn't have a msql2 package (msql2 is still in beta), so an older version of Xsqlmenu is distributed here. Once msql2 is Debianized, I'll package the newer Xsqlmenu. ] CD-ROM MANUFACTURERS: It may be permissible for you to distribute this on CD depending on how much you charge; see below. Author's Stated Copyright: -- Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed. However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software is NOT being commercially distributed. Please send your contributions, bugreports, hints etc. to the author. Thanks ! Debian Changes -- I have modified the code to work with XForms 0.86. I have also fixed one small logic bug. Altogether, about 5 lines of code have changed. You can get the diff file from ftp.debian.org in the source area. E-Mails From Author (irrelevant portions deleted) --- From: Kees Lemmens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:25:23 +0200 (METDST) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi John, Before I reply to your message, I have one more question. Is it OK for CD-ROM manufacturers to distribute Xsqlmenu on the Debian CD-ROMs that they make? Yep, as long as the CDROM's are sold for reasonable prices: all software on these distributions is free, so they only should be paid for their efforts to put it on the CD's. I think a maximum of approx. 20-25 $ could be tolerated imo. If the prices get higher, they really are going to make illegal profit of the work of people who intended software to be free and who for that reason don't charge any money for it and that is something that should be avoided if you ask me. (did you ? :-)) On the other hand: I wouldn't know how to fight people that clearly violate these unwritten rules. --- From: Kees Lemmens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:51:29 +0200 (METDST) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] No problem adding the package to Debian (Red-Hat would be another thing) --- From: Kees Lemmens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:23:08 +0200 (METDST) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, now I see the point ! if you want to ship with msql 1, then it is OK to me to if you pack your patched version: no problem whatsoever ! But maybe you could refer to the new msql2 version ? --- -- John Goerzen | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org) Custom Programming| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Re: Copyright question
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed. This sentence is still problematic. We are distributing modified binaries and files to modify the source (though not actually distributing modified source). Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On 3 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote: OK, I have gotten some replies from the author regarding copyright issues. Does it still belong in non-free? (It appears his intent is basically to keep companies from charging for it...) Below is the copyright file I'm distributing with it: [...] The author allows us to distribute a Debian package, good, but a CD-ROM vendor can't charge any amount he wants for his Debian CDs if he include this package, so yes, I'm afraid it still belong in non-free. -- Enrique Zanardi[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dpto. Fisica Fundamental y Experimental Univ. de La Laguna -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
From: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Kees Lemmens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yep, as long as the CDROM's are sold for reasonable prices: all software on these distributions is free, so they only should be paid for their efforts to put it on the CD's. I think a maximum of approx. 20-25 $ could be tolerated imo. If the prices get higher, they really are going to make illegal profit of the work of people who intended software to be free and who for that reason don't charge any money for it and that is something that should be avoided if you ask me. (did you ? :-)) Kees, I'm Bruce Perens, project leader for Debian. I have your mail with John Goerzen. It's clear that you don't want people to make an un-deserved profit from your software. I've included a _draft_ copy of the Debian social contract with this message, because it gives a set of guidelines that we are considering for the free software within Debian. I've written and GPL-ed a number of software packages, including the Electric Fence malloc debugger and various pieces of Debian. Electric Fence is currently distributed by Red Hat, Caldera, LST, and of course Debian. My take on the un-deserved profit is that it _will_not_happen_ in the case of free software. The reasons for this are: 1. The user can always get the software from a free source. This is documented in the license that the user gets with their (paid) CD. The availability of free software is also well-documented on the Internet, so there is little chance that someone would pay a lot for a CD with the specific aim of acquiring your package. 2. In the case that the vendor is charging a large amount for a CD, they are generally selling something else, like service or system integration, and the presence of your software would not make up a large part of the value of their system. 3. In the case that someone wants to make a commercial product that is tightly integrated with your software, if it is GPL-ed they would either have to give away _their_ source code or negociate a special license with you. So, I am OK with GPL-ing my programs, and I'd encourage you to do so as well. I've appended the Debian free software guidlines draft document. Thanks Bruce Perens We are Software In The Public Interest, producers of the Debian GNU/Linux system. This is the social contract we offer to the free software community. We promise to keep our GNU/Linux system entirely free software. As there are many implementations of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is free below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. We will contribute to the free software world. When we write new software, we will license it as free software. We will make the best free-software system we can, so that free software will be widely |distributed and easily used. We will feed back bug-fixes, improvements, |user requests etc. to the upstream authors of software included in our |system. We will keep a publically accessible bug-tracking system to assist |in this. We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will put their interests first, heeding the needs of other interests such as commercial software manufacturers only when that is important to fulfill our users needs. The Debian Free Software Guidelines 1. The software may be redistributed by anyone. The license may restrict a source file from being distributed in modified form, as long as it allows modified binary files, and files that are distributed along with the source for the express purpose of modifying the source. 2. The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software, nor may it require a royalty or license fee. 3. The license must not discriminate against any person or group of | persons unless their use would violate a law of the country from | which the software is distributed. 4. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program | in a specific field of endeavor where such use would not violate the | laws of the country from which the software is distributed. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. 5. The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source as well as binary form. 6. The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. 7. The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If a person extracts the program from Debian and uses it or distributes it without Debian, that person and any people to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that
Re: Copyright question
From: Enrique Zanardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. That puts it in non-free. Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed. That too. We are going to start supporting unmodified source + Debian deltas, but never unmodified binaries. However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software is NOT being commercially distributed. Somewhat sloppy language. Is deb packaging a modification? (philosophical doubt) We change pathnames and locations of files. Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote: Non-free it is No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed) _binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into non-free. What do the others think? Before we go off half-cocked here: 1) I have e-mailed the author asking for permission to distribute a bug-fixed software 2) We are distributing various programs without source already. These programs are not fixable. (Example: xforms) I really don't think that we should make lack of modification permission to be a reason to not include in non-free (after all, isn't this what non-free is for?) -- John Goerzen | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org) Custom Programming| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On 1 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote: Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote: Non-free it is No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed) _binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into non-free. What do the others think? Before we go off half-cocked here: 1) I have e-mailed the author asking for permission to distribute a bug-fixed software 2) We are distributing various programs without source already. These programs are not fixable. (Example: xforms) I really don't think that we should make lack of modification permission to be a reason to not include in non-free (after all, isn't this what non-free is for?) Not exactly. non-free is not the place for doing illegal things :-) It just the distribution used for programs which have some restrictions on commercial distribution. Even the programs in non-free will have to comply with a few rules, as for example, we must be allowed to ship a modified binary. (Note, that this is something different from programs where no source is available but we are allowed to modify, i.e. hack, the binary.) Thanks, Chris -- Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don't know Perl? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA http://www.perl.com http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Copyright question
A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows: Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed. However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software is NOT being commercially distributed. Please send your contributions, bugreports, hints etc. to the author. Thanks ! Should this go in contrib or non-free? -- John Goerzen | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org) Custom Programming| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote: A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows: Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. This puts the package into non-free. However... Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed. We need at least the possibility to distribute a modified binary version of the package. If this isn't allowed by that sentence, than the package can't be included in the archive at all. Or do I miss something? However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software is NOT being commercially distributed. Please send your contributions, bugreports, hints etc. to the author. Thanks ! Should this go in contrib or non-free? Thanks, Chris -- _,, Christian Schwarz / o \__ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], ! ___; [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / \\\__/ !PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA \ / http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/ -.-.,---,-,-..---,-,-.,.-.- DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN! -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
This puts the package into non-free. However...
Redistribution of
modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
We need at least the possibility to distribute a modified binary version
of the package. If this isn't allowed by that sentence, than the package
can't be included in the archive at all. Or do I miss something?
Yes, if a modifying the package isn't allowed, then it cannot go
into the main archive, and has to go into non-free, even if you're
allowed to make money distributing it.
Non-free it is
--
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/bin/perl -sp0777iX+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$kSK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes: Yes, if a modifying the package isn't allowed, then it cannot go into the main archive, and has to go into non-free, even if you're allowed to make money distributing it. If modifying the package isn't allowed, it can't go anywhere! You better write to the author so he can clarify what a modification is. Usually it's not a problem. It would have to go in non-free in any case. Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote: A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows: Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed. However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software is NOT being commercially distributed. Please send your contributions, bugreports, hints etc. to the author. Thanks ! Should this go in contrib or non-free? My own thoughts about the subject: Q) Is deb packaging a modification? (philosophical doubt) A1) No. Then Package should go in non-free (only non-commercial distribution allowed == non-free section, Debian Policy Manual v2.1.3.2). A2) Yes. Then Program can't be distributed as a Debian package. Best wishes, -- Enrique Zanardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dpto. Fisica Fundamental y Experimental Univ. de La Laguna -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Copyright question
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote: On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote: A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows: Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. This puts the package into non-free. However... Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed. We need at least the possibility to distribute a modified binary version of the package. If this isn't allowed by that sentence, than the package can't be included in the archive at all. Or do I miss something? Yes, if a modifying the package isn't allowed, then it cannot go into the main archive, and has to go into non-free, even if you're allowed to make money distributing it. Non-free it is No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed) _binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into non-free. What do the others think? Thanks, Chris -- Christian Schwarz Do you know [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Debian GNU/Linux?[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA http://www.debian.org http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: copyright question for abuse
Take the public domain part and put it in one package. Take the non-free part and put it in another package. You already knew this but I said it as context for the following: Contact the author and ask them to issue the following more-legaly-correct license _only_ on the public domain part: Crack dot com surrenders its copyright rights to this software and releases it into the public domain. Package the rest with their old copyright. Thanks Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: copyright question for abuse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 21.05.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Take the public domain part and put it in one package. Take the non-free part and put it in another package. You already knew this but I said it as context for the following: Contact the author and ask them to issue the following more-legaly-correct license _only_ on the public domain part: Crack dot com surrenders its copyright rights to this software and releases it into the public domain. Package the rest with their old copyright. Well, that's one option. The other is to replace all references to public domain with references to freeware. Should have the same effect for us. It's just that Copyright and public domain don't mix (and very few people seem to understand this). MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
copyright question for abuse
Crack dot Com has decided to release abuse as public domain software. So no more a.out abuse, once I get the new one built. But I do have a couple of questions about their copyright: This release is to the public domain, meaning there are very few restrictions in on use. But here are a few : Restrictions : Crack dot Com retains ownership of the Abuse Trademark and data sets. Disclaimer of Warranty : As with most Public Domain software, no warranty is made or implied by Crack dot Com or Jonathan Clark. Export Restrictions : I'm not a very legal person, so I don't know if PD software can be exported countries subject to U.S.A. export restrictions (currently Cuba, Yugoslavia, Hati, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria). Just to be safe don't put it there. Things you CAN do : Make another game and sell it commercially Use bits and parts as you see fit. Learn how to make a better game Port Abuse to any system you like. This all seems ok except for maybe the export restrictions section. We don't have a non-Cuba-Yugoslavia-Hati-Iran-Iraq-North-Korea-and-Syria section like we have a non-us section.. so does abuse belong in non-free or on some us-only ftp site, or what? Also, what is being released into the public domain is the abuse engine, but not the data files for the actual game (levels, sounds, so on). Those still have a non-free copyright. So there will probably be a abuse-libs package that is in non-free, which will stick abuse, which will depend on that package, right back in contrib, where it is now. -- See shy Jo. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: copyright question for abuse
Crack dot Com has decided to release abuse as public domain software. So no more a.out abuse, once I get the new one built. But I do have a couple of questions about their copyright: This release is to the public domain, meaning there are very few restrictions in on use. But here are a few : Restrictions : Crack dot Com retains ownership of the Abuse Trademark and data sets. What does data sets mean? Anyways, I think they are saying that they are retaining copyright, and just licensing it. This is the same as most of our other software. Disclaimer of Warranty : As with most Public Domain software, no warranty is made or implied by Crack dot Com or Jonathan Clark. Export Restrictions : I'm not a very legal person, so I don't know if PD software can be exported countries subject to U.S.A. export restrictions (currently Cuba, Yugoslavia, Hati, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria). Just to be safe don't put it there. Nobody is allowed to export software (or hardly anything, really) to these countries. This can be safely ignored. Things you CAN do : Make another game and sell it commercially Use bits and parts as you see fit. Learn how to make a better game Port Abuse to any system you like. This all seems ok except for maybe the export restrictions section. We don't have a non-Cuba-Yugoslavia-Hati-Iran-Iraq-North-Korea-and-Syria section like we have a non-us section.. so does abuse belong in non-free or on some us-only ftp site, or what? Don't worry about it. Also, what is being released into the public domain is the abuse engine, but not the data files for the actual game (levels, sounds, so on). Those still have a non-free copyright. So there will probably be a abuse-libs package that is in non-free, which will stick abuse, which will depend on that package, right back in contrib, where it is now. Sounds like the libs can go into the free section. Cool. Cheers, - Jim pgpLacEnIAZ72.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: copyright question for abuse
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This all seems ok except for maybe the export restrictions section. We don't have a non-Cuba-Yugoslavia-Hati-Iran-Iraq-North-Korea-and-Syria section like we have a non-us section.. so does abuse belong in non-free or on some us-only ftp site, or what? Don't worry about that. The same statement could be made about the entire main distribution. Also, what is being released into the public domain is the abuse engine, but not the data files for the actual game (levels, sounds, so on). Those still have a non-free copyright. So there will probably be a abuse-libs package that is in non-free, which will stick abuse, which will depend on that package, right back in contrib, where it is now. At least it won't be a.out any more. Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
