Re: Fwd: Libranet (Debian derivate) requires $10 membership
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Isn't this a huge violation of the GPL ?? It seems to be. Their decision only to distribute to people who agree to pay them $10 is, of course, perfectly fine, but they also say: You may freely download and use this distribution for any purpose with the exception that you may not sell or distribute this iso image without prior permission from Libra Computer Systems Ltd. The programs contained within the Libranet distribution have been released under several different licenses, mostly under the GPL. For more information read each program's respective documentation. I understand here that the ISO image they distribute contains GPL'ed programs. Thus if the image is a copyrightable work in itself (and I think it is, as an aggregate work), it is a work based on those GPL'ed program and hence (by GPL clause 2b) they must license their aggregate copyright under GPL. Thus they must not restrict their customers from selling or redistributing the image. See this paragraph in the GPL: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. Putting GPL and non-GPL code in the same iso image looks to me like an example of mere aggregation, so my guess is that even if Libranet's current wording violates the GPL, they could achieve the same effect by adopting a different wording: instead of saying that The Libranet iso image is copyright 2000 Libra Computer Systems Ltd and that they are not giving permission to do XYZ, they could instead say that the Libranet iso image contains material that is copyright 2000 Libra Computer Systems Ltd and that they are not giving permission to do XYZ. However, this change may be unnecessary. It's highly probably that Libranet would have a valid copyright over the iso image even if the image contained only GPL programs, as the selection and arrangement could itself constitute a work to which copyright is applicable. However, I'm not a lawyer. By the way, I think it would be bad for Debian if what Libranet is doing were to turn out to be illegal. Edmund
export law again
[Please CC me, I do not subscribe to -legal] What is this forum's opinion on a US developer compiling (without modifying) a package and uploading it to non-US? I've occasionally had to do this, since there is no PowerPC autobuilder outside the US right now. We can work around that in other ways, presumably, but I'd like to get a sense of where the law stands on this. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: Fwd: Libranet (Debian derivate) requires $10 membership
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: You may freely download and use this distribution for any purpose with the exception that you may not sell or distribute this iso image without prior permission from Libra Computer Systems Ltd. ... However, this change may be unnecessary. It's highly probably that Libranet would have a valid copyright over the iso image even if the It looks to me like Libranet is trying to confuse users and fool them into thinking that the software itself is property of Libranet. While Libranet is not claiming rights over the software itself (just the ISO image, which they do have rights to), 90% of the people that use the software won't realize this. For example, you could copy all the files on the CD into a .tar file and distribute that, but few people will realize it. All their license really prohibits is verbatim copying of the CD-ROM. I don't think the GPL really addresses the idea of licensing of a collection of software as a whole. It seems to have been designed with the premise that no matter how it was distributed, the actual GPL-licensed software would always be free. By the way, I think it would be bad for Debian if what Libranet is doing were to turn out to be illegal. Why?
Python licensing
The following are brief quotes. Please read the complete versions of these articles on Python licensing as well as others by Tim Peters and Guido van Rossum in say comp.lang.python. A key point that must be said, CNRI has not to my knowledge made any public statements at all about Python licensing. The following quotes, except for the analysis of who owns the copyright, are essentially hypothetical speculations. No one knows or can speak for what CNRI believes. It might be in a prospective distributor's interest to ask CNRI and find out for certain, hopefully in a reply that can be made public. The situation is simply complicated. Do not form an opinion over any one posting, read everything Guido van Rossum and Tim Peters have said. From: Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: python-list@python.org Subject: RE: Questions for Tim Peters Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:12:02 -0400 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: comp.lang.python [Much snipped, read the entire article. Again, what CNRI actually believes is unknown.] Ah, there's more here than meets the eye. CWI gave Guido certain broad rights to Python when Guido left CWI, and Guido signed those rights over to CNRI. AFAIK, those documents are not publicly available, and I only know about them because Guido happened to tell me the other day. Guido has no doubts whatsoever about CNRI's legal right to license Python however they please, and neither does his legal counsel. The only thing in dispute here is whether *other* parties can rely on what the CWI license appears to tell them. At least three different lawyers so far had at least three different opinions about that. Beats me. From: Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: python-list@python.org, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Questions for Guido van Rossum (Was: ...Tim Peters) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 22:25:23 -0400 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: comp.lang.python [Much snipped, read the entire article. Again, what CNRI actually believes is unknown. Tim Peters is responding to a speculative question from me with more speculation. To repeat, no one knows or can say what CNRI believes.] I would hope that the final agreement between CNRI and BeOpen would include a clear indication one way or another whether the purported license of Python 1.5.2 and 1.6a2 is valid in the eyes of CNRI. After all, 1.6 is not released yet, so many distributors will be including 1.5.2 for some time. Well, I can't argue against you on this! If CNRI claims they released software without a valid license, the legality of using 1.5.2 and 1.6a2 is muddy (indeed, CNRI may not even agree 1.6a2 was a release in the sense of 1.5.2). Since it seems very unlikely they'll agree to say that the CWI license is valid, perhaps they could be persuaded to promise not to press any claims based on the presumed invalidity of the CWI license excepting claims against BeOpen PythonLabs. I've copied my bosses on this, but, again, it has to be taken up with CNRI directly. Sincerely yours, Henry Jones --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy.
