Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 04:23:57PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 10 h 6, the keyboard of Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's not be silly here. ... I'm tired of hearing about it. Brian, I wasn't trying to raise a flamewar, and I absolutely agree with your analysis. I was just motivated by: - pure curiosity (everybody says so, but is it true?), - practical limits (a friend of mine created a company to sell an on-line game; they want to release the client as GPL and not the server; they wonder if it's legal, since these two programs are not linked, they are just connected by the network). The problem is mostly with the definitions of interfaces, the AOL client case thread (in debian-legal, -devel or -private, I don't remember) being a good example. IMHO, even if I consider such a client not free (because it depends on a non-free server), the client itself is considered DFSG compliant. So, the difference is mainly on the communication level, making a library link is close enough to be considered a true dependance but every other communication link are simply fair use of the program. This lead to some problem where you can use a GPL library if you put a GPL scripting interface over it and use the script interface in a non-GPL program. For sure, this use will be contested but lawyers could make good money by disputing such a case for years. This even more important with the growing popularity of Corba and other Distributed Object Technologies. The next major version of the GPL should address this problem IIRC. All IMHO, the issue can't be acheive only by clearly defining the usability and purpose of the program, which let you say that such a program is free if it achieve all its functionalities without depending on any non-free components. Also, you have to explicitely tell what's can be considered a fair use of the program/library by other programs without being considered linked to them. Both points are hard to specify precisely and correctly, without affecting the usability of the program/library in the real not completely free world. I'm not sure the DFSG prevent us against such abuses of the freeness of a program. However, it's only guidelines (contrarely to the OSD) and we are free to interpret it the way we want (and even modify it when needed); we should never take something au pied de la lettre (sorry don't know the right translation, it means exactly the way it written, without considering the intensions of the author.). just my 2 pennies. -- Fabien NinolesChevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers aka Corbeau aka le Veneur Gris Debian GNU/Linux maintainer E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WebPage:http://www.tzone.org/~fabien RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
vnterm3.3 Copyright
I'm interested in including the vnterm program in Debian and since I'm a bit unsure whether this copyright complies with the DFSG I'd like for all parties to look at it, and tell me what you think. --- TriChlor Copyright Policy All TriChlor software products are copyrighted by individual authors and the TriChlor Group, respectively. All rights reserved. You may copy, distribute, and use the software for any purpose, as long as you do not charge a fee for doing so, and include this copyright notice. Commercial or corporation usage or distribution requires prior consent from us. All software is provided as is, without express or implied warranty. All software is generally provided free of charge as copyrighted freeware (that means you can have it for free and make as many copies for as many friends as you like, but we reserve the copyright in order to prevent unauthorized modifications and to prevent people from selling it to unsuspecting users---we want to keep the freeware free). Under all circumstances individual author's copyright prevails where there is conflict with TriChlor's. --- What I'm particularly confused about are points 1, 3 and 6 due to these statements, taken out of context of course, Commericial or corporation usage or distribution requires prior consent from us, ...to prevent unauthorized modifications... I could find no email address from the original author of the vnterm patch to xterm nor could I find a copyright file in the tar.Z file on the media.mit.edu server, so I'm not even sure if this copyright applies. Not to mention that the vnterm3.3 sources are based on X11R5 and currently don't compile so would take (I assume) a not-so-small undertaking to even compile, but I digress. legal: Is all that's needed is authorization from TriChlor to distribute this or is something further needed? TriChlor: Any help at all would be appreciated. -- Ashley (Not a Lawyer) Clark (Please cc: me, as I do not subscribe to debian-legal) Links: TriChlor Copyright Policy: http://www.trichlor.org/geninfo/copyright.html DFSG: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
Re: vnterm3.3 Copyright
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:56:15AM -0600, Ashley Clark wrote: I'm interested in including the vnterm program in Debian and since I'm a bit unsure whether this copyright complies with the DFSG I'd like for all parties to look at it, and tell me what you think. --- TriChlor Copyright Policy All TriChlor software products are copyrighted by individual authors and the TriChlor Group, respectively. All rights reserved. You may copy, distribute, and use the software for any purpose, as long as you do not charge a fee for ^^ doing so, and include this copyright notice. Commercial or corporation usage ^^^ or distribution requires prior consent from us. All software is provided as ^^ is, without express or implied warranty. These are non-free
Re: 'impact' ttf license?
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:17:04PM +0100, Stefan Ott wrote: i'm planning to package a perl tool i made (available at http://tools.desire.ch/perlbeat) which includes some gifs using the IMPACT (windows) truetype font. now i wonder if this is ok, because i don't know about impact's license. does anyone? Distribution of rendered fonts is legal provided that you aquired the font rendered legally. That is to say, if you have a legal copy of a font you are entitled to use it. Case law for this predates computers by at least 100 years and comes from the day that fonts were made of metal and put into printing presses. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 jgoerzen stu: ahh that machine. Don't you think that something named stallman deserves to be an Alpha? :-) stu jgoerzen: no, actually, I'd prolly be more inclined to name a 386 with 4 megs of ram and a 40 meg hard drive stallman. stu with a big fat case that makes tons of noise and rattles the floor * Knghtbrd falls to the floor holding his sides laughing stu and.. stu double-height hard drive
Question
Is the appended license okay for us? Yes, I know we are talking about non-free. Michael P.S.: Please CC me on replies. -- Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers! Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz| Go Rhein Fire! Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux! Email: Michael@Fam-Meskes.De | Use PostgreSQL! ITS4 (It's The Software, Stupid! -- Security Scanner) NON-COMMERCIAL LICENSE (Version 1, Feb 17, 2000) Copyright (C) 2000, Reliable Software Technologies Corporation All rights reserved. For commercial licensing please contact Reliable Software Technologies Corporation (RST). RST has exclusive licensing rights for the technology for commercial purposes. You can contact RST at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. This License applies to the computer program(s) known as ITS4 (It's The Software, Stupid! -- Security Scanner) The Program, below, refers to such program, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work of the Program, such as a translation or a modification. The Program is a copyrighted work whose copyright is held by Reliable Software Technologies Corporation (the Licensor). BY USING, MODIFYING AND/OR DISTRIBUTING THE PROGRAM (OR ANY WORK BASED ON THE PROGRAM), YOU INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS LICENSE, AND ALL ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTING OR MODIFYING THE PROGRAM OR WORKS BASED ON IT. NOTHING OTHER THAN THIS LICENSE GRANTS YOU PERMISSION TO USE, MODIFY AND/OR DISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM OR ITS DERIVATIVE WORKS. THESE ACTIONS ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT USE, MODIFY AND/OR DISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM. 1. Licenses. Licensor hereby grants you the following rights, provided that you comply with all of the restrictions set forth in this License and provided, further, that you distribute an unmodified copy of this License with the Program: (a) You may copy and distribute literal (i.e., verbatim) copies of the Program's source code as you receive it throughout the world, in any medium. (b) You may not use the program for commercial purposes under some circumstances. Primarily, the program must not be sold commercially as a separate product, as part of a bigger product or project, or used in third party work-for-hire situations. Please see Section 2, Restrictions, for more details. Use by individuals and non-profit organizations is always allowed. Companies are permitted to use this program as long as it is not used for revenue-generating purposes. It may be used to audit revenue-generating source code, provided the audit is performed solely by the company that owns the source code. (c) You may build derived versions of this software under the restrictions stated in Section 2, Restrictions, of this license. The derived versions must be clearly marked as such and must be called by a name other than ITS4. ITS4 and It's The Software, Stupid! are trademarks of Reliable Software Technologies. All derived versions of the Program must be made freely available under the terms of this license. Reliable Software Technologies must be given the right to use the modified source code in their products without any compensation and without being required to separately name the parties whose modifications are being used. 2. Restrictions. (a) Distribution of the Program or any work based on the Program by a commercial organization to any third party is prohibited if any payment is made in connection with such distribution, whether directly (as in payment for a copy of the Program) or indirectly (as in payment for some service related to the Program, or payment for some product or service that includes a copy of the Program without charge, or payment for some product or service the delivery of which requires for the recipient to retrieve/download or otherwise obtain a copy of the Program; these are only examples, and not an exhaustive enumeration of prohibited activities). As an exception to the above rule, putting this program on CD-ROMs containing other free software is explicitly permitted even when a modest distribution fee is charged for the CD, as long as this software is not a primary selling argument for the CD. (b) You must meet all of the following conditions with respect to the distribution of any work based on the Program: (i) All modified versions of the Program, must carry prominent notice stating that the Program has been modified. The notice must indicate who made the modifications and how the Program's files were modified and the date of any change; (ii) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole and at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License; (iii) You must cause the Program, at each time it commences operation, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
Re: 'impact' ttf license?
thanks to all of you for the information. Stefan On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 05:02:26AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:17:04PM +0100, Stefan Ott wrote: i'm planning to package a perl tool i made (available at http://tools.desire.ch/perlbeat) which includes some gifs using the IMPACT (windows) truetype font. now i wonder if this is ok, because i don't know about impact's license. does anyone? Distribution of rendered fonts is legal provided that you aquired the font rendered legally. That is to say, if you have a legal copy of a font you are entitled to use it. Case law for this predates computers by at least 100 years and comes from the day that fonts were made of metal and put into printing presses. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 jgoerzen stu: ahh that machine. Don't you think that something named stallman deserves to be an Alpha? :-) stu jgoerzen: no, actually, I'd prolly be more inclined to name a 386 with 4 megs of ram and a 40 meg hard drive stallman. stu with a big fat case that makes tons of noise and rattles the floor * Knghtbrd falls to the floor holding his sides laughing stu and.. stu double-height hard drive
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:14:00PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:48:44PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 09:38:17PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: So why people tend to think that piping is ok, but using .so isn't ? There is a quality difference between piping and any sort of linking. What is this subtle difference ? Oh, and remember shared memory, and other IPCs between linking and piping. Piping is done by using both components in a bigger structure (the pipe is added by the user, not something that is provided by either application). Also, there is no advertised interface for piping. (a pipe is just a byte stream). However, note that the output of a program is usually subject to copyright law, so a pipe is legal if the license for the output allows usage of it. The GPL explicitely does not restrict usage. Or using proprietary kernel is ok, proprietary .so isn't ? What do you mean with using? Calling functions that are not contained by your program. Is (asm:int) so different than (asm:call) for copyright purposes ? I don't know what (asm:*) is. However, there is no difference between calling kernel functions or library functions. You are thinking very strange. What you think is not restricted is actually subject to restrictions but allowed because the licenses explicitely allow it. Piping is restricted, but allowed as use by all free software licenses (if you don't bundle the application and distribute them as a whole). Calling kernel functions is restricted, but allowed by the linux kernel license (or the other way round, by the GPL in the exception clause). Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.orgfor public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: What is this subtle difference ? Piping is done by using both components in a bigger structure (the pipe is added by the user, not something that is provided by either application). That isn't really important - what's important is that the two programs being piped are separate works. Copyright law doesn't care about how two separate works communicate. It only covers distribution and any use that is not fair use. Also, there is no advertised interface for piping. (a pipe is just a byte stream). That doesn't really matter either - it's not the interface being advertised that creates the problem, but rather the inclusion of headers which are covered under copyright. If the interface was described in a white paper, without code being distributed, or if the headers were public domain, this would not cause a problem. However, note that the output of a program is usually subject to copyright law, so a pipe is legal if the license for the output allows usage of it. The GPL explicitely does not restrict usage. Only if the output of the program is considered a derived work. For example, a program that prints its source code would have its output covered by copyright. But a program that outputs arbitrary data does *not* place its output under the copyright of the original program. If you use a program to create a separate work, you own the copyright to it. If you use a word processor, documents you write with it are yours; if you use a compiler, copyright on the executable belongs to the owner of the source code, and if you use Acrobat Reader to print a PDF, then the copyright on the results belong to the owner of the PDF, not to Adobe. explicitely allow it. Piping is restricted, but allowed as use by all free software licenses (if you don't bundle the application and And by copyright law in general, as fair use. distribute them as a whole). Calling kernel functions is restricted, but allowed by the linux kernel license (or the other way round, by the GPL in the exception clause). Mostly this is a result of having to include some portion of the kernel or library in the program that wants to include it, as headers. This makes a derived work. Using a pipe does not create a derived work since the two programs are separate even while the pipe is being used.
Re: Question
While I agree with Michael that we're talking non-free about this specific instance, I was wondering if someone, somewhere has some guidelines set up for determining whether something belongs in free/non-free, etc. If they haven't been written, perhaps now is the time to write them them. I'm not suggesting a codification (too inflexible) but some basic guidelines would probably help answer many of the question I've seen pop up on this list. Ron ./. On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, you wrote: Is the appended license okay for us? Yes, I know we are talking about non-free. Michael P.S.: Please CC me on replies. -- Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers! Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz| Go Rhein Fire! Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux! Email: Michael@Fam-Meskes.De | Use PostgreSQL! - LICENCE Ronald L. Chichester, Esq. Frohwitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 713-621-0703 (voice) 713-622-1624 (facsimile) +--+ | CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Unless otherwise | indicated or obvious from the nature of the | transmission, the information contained in this | e-mail message is attorney priviledged and | confidential information intended solely for | the use of the recepient(s) named above. If you | are not the intended recipient, then any | dissemination, distribution, or copying of this | communication or the contents thereof is | strictly prohibited. | | Under United States Code Title 47, | Sec.227(b)(1)(C) and Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email | address may not be added to any commercial mail | list with out my permission. Violation of my | privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in | a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damage per incident. +--+
Re: Question
It's called the DFSG Ronald L.Chichester wrote: While I agree with Michael that we're talking non-free about this specific instance, I was wondering if someone, somewhere has some guidelines set up for determining whether something belongs in free/non-free, etc. If they haven't been written, perhaps now is the time to write them them. I'm not suggesting a codification (too inflexible) but some basic guidelines would probably help answer many of the question I've seen pop up on this list. Ron ./. On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, you wrote: Is the appended license okay for us? Yes, I know we are talking about non-free. Michael P.S.: Please CC me on replies. -- Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers! Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz| Go Rhein Fire! Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux! Email: Michael@Fam-Meskes.De | Use PostgreSQL! - LICENCE Ronald L. Chichester, Esq. Frohwitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 713-621-0703 (voice) 713-622-1624 (facsimile) +--+ | CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Unless otherwise | indicated or obvious from the nature of the | transmission, the information contained in this | e-mail message is attorney priviledged and | confidential information intended solely for | the use of the recepient(s) named above. If you | are not the intended recipient, then any | dissemination, distribution, or copying of this | communication or the contents thereof is | strictly prohibited. | | Under United States Code Title 47, | Sec.227(b)(1)(C) and Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email | address may not be added to any commercial mail | list with out my permission. Violation of my | privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in | a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damage per incident. +--+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 01:03:24PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote: Is the appended license okay for us? Yes, I know we are talking about non-free. Michael P.S.: Please CC me on replies. Unless I missed something, it's ok for non-free
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:32:45PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:14:00PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: What is this subtle difference ? Oh, and remember shared memory, and other IPCs between linking and piping. Piping is done by using both components in a bigger structure (the pipe is added by the user, not something that is provided by either application). Also, there is no advertised interface for piping. (a pipe is just a byte stream). Does it mean that obscurity of way of comunicating between two copyrighted works means anything for copyright laws ? Where do you thing copyright law starts binding ? 1 ) pipe 2 ) shared memory 3 ) corba 4 ) remote procedure call 5 ) dynamic linking 6 ) dynamic linking, program and lib merged by tar :) 8 ) static linking However, note that the output of a program is usually subject to copyright law, so a pipe is legal if the license for the output allows usage of it. The GPL explicitely does not restrict usage. No, program's output is not subject of copyright law. If it were, you couldn't write free software on MSnotepad, because files you made were belonging to MS. Calling functions that are not contained by your program. Is (asm:int) so different than (asm:call) for copyright purposes ? I don't know what (asm:*) is. i386 assembler functions : int and call However, there is no difference between calling kernel functions or library functions. So why do you think one can use proprietary kernel but couldn't use proprietary lib if headers were pd ? You are thinking very strange. Thanks What you think is not restricted is actually subject to restrictions but allowed because the licenses explicitely allow it. Piping is restricted, but allowed as use by all free software licenses (if you don't bundle the application and distribute them as a whole). Calling kernel functions is restricted, but allowed by the linux kernel license (or the other way round, by the GPL in the exception clause). Piping restricted ? This sounds like prohibiting storing two books on the shelve by its copyright. You can do anything (ex: piping its output) but redistributing with software (anything) you have legally aquired. And calling kernel is not legal because it is allowed by license, but because it is claimed to be *usage*. (equals) not because license allows it, but because it isn't subject of copyright law.
Re: An advise how to apply for the TkMan author to change his license.
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:18:47AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote: [22:42:00 src]$ tail -n 9 tkman-2.1b4/README-tkman Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted. This software is provided on as as is basis, without any warranty whatsoever. documentation for documentation for looks like a classic typo (where the typist loses track of what's been typed and types a phrase twice). If that's the case it should be a trivial fix. The situation is that I am trying to maintain TkMan while applying to be a debian maintainer. The new TkMan license is stated above. Yet as far as I understand this license is not enough for asking to get TkMan into main since TkMan depends on rman which is in non-free. It's been more then a week when I posted my message but Stephen M. Moraco [EMAIL PROTECTED], the debian maintainer of rman did not reply me. Should I wait more? Should I email him my message again? Is that because I am not a debian maintainer? I am considering approaching the author again, this time about rman. I already approached him about TkMan and he seems to be most cooperative. Suppose I was a debian maintainer, is it ethical of me to approach the upstream author about a package that I do not maintain claiming that one of my motivations is the desire to put TkMan into debian's main pool? Are there any other reasons why I should not approach him? -- Shaul Karl [EMAIL PROTECTED] An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.
