Re: License issues with fortune packages?
* Joseph Carter | On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 03:05:16PM -0700, John Galt wrote: | Probably all would be good with proper attribution, but I'd keep them in | non-free if I were you (proper attribution does NOT release you from | copyright restrictions, it just enhances the fair use claim). | | Fair use is fair use, and therefore not subject to restrictions. | | The collection may be under Copyright, but I would hope a fairly liberal | license. Actually most of them doesn't have a license, though I don't think it will be a problem to get a proper license on them, but I wanted to check the legalness with you before contacting the authors etc. So, it's ok for them to go into main? (Please keep me on the Cc list) -- Tollef Fog Heen Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.
copyright problem (regarding eemu and compatibles(LONG))
This is not (yet) a Debian problem, though it concerns an existing package, eemu. I've written a backwards compatible eemu-server and a set of clients. They are not using eemu-code, they uses a new protocol between them. (We use them internally right now and are quite happy with them.) The server can, however, understand the eemu-protocol so that eemu-clients and the eemu-browsers can be used. Now, as I really liked eemu I thought the eemu-people should get some credit for their work. For those who need commercial support I would also include links to eemu. I've used emu-server-2.32 before I wrote my own and the license looks like this: # EMU is an event manager processing events from emsg. # VERSION 2.32 # Copyright 1999 # by Jarrix Systems Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. Some individual # files in this distribution may be covered # by other copyrights, as noted in their embedded comments. # # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted # provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such # copies, and that any documentation, announcements, and other # materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the # software was developed at Jarrix Systems Pty Ltd by Jarra and Anna # Voleynik. # # No charge, other than an at-cost distribution fee, may be charged # for copies, derivations, or distributions of this material without # the express written consent of the copyright holder. # # THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY # EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE # IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR # PURPOSE. I would like to release my server under GPL, with copyright to the company I work for. And, hopefully, maybe also some day included in Debian. :-) So I contacted the eemu-people (see below) to get their view of a name for the server. (I thought that would be a polite thing to do.) Now, as you can see, they have a slightly different view of copyright than what I do. I've contacted the eemu-maintainer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), and got his support, the european copyright laws would not be a problem. Question is, could there be any legal problem world-wide? Or are they just trying to scare me? I apologize for including private e-mails, but I think they are necessary for giving the whole picture. - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:07 AM Subject: eemu Hi. Got your address from the LISA proceedings. Maybe I should have written to you before, but, well, no time and all that. :-) I started to use eemu maybe one or two years ago, when you still had a free version (maybe you still do?). Anyway, I was impressed by the simplicity and strength of eemu. So I implemented it with a couple of clients. Soon I discovered that the load on the eemu-server went crazy each five minutes when all clients called in and reported. (Yes, yes, I know, shouldn't be any, but keeping disk low isn't always the top priority. ) Ok, being a perl guy I started writing code to get rid of the fork of sort and grep when the outfiles was written. I ended up rewriting the server from scratch. So, things started to work fine now, lesser load on the server. (Yes, that's still the wrong approach, fix the problems instead. I know. :-) But I couldn't resist. The eemu idea is great. The protocol was a little (in my humble view) rigid. So, I rewrote emsg1 in perl instead, changing to a multiline protocol with 'key: value'. Still using the original commands though. But now I could extend them if I wanted. So, the only thing that remain from eemu is the idea and backwards compatibility with the old protocol. (It is still usable together with xeb 2.1) Now I am thinking of publishing the code under GPL. Maybe someone else would like to use the code. I've got so much from the net and now I wanted to return something also. So, therefore I would like to ask you if you have any objections to this? I know this may interfere with your company, I hope it doesn't, I'm sure there are many that want commercial support instead. And I thought of calling it 'nemu' (not emu) or something like that. Of course, I will refer to you and your company if you don't mind. -- From: eemuconcept [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: J=F6rgen H=E4gg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: eemu Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:24:38 +1100 J=F6rgen, Thank you for your e-mail and appreciation of the eemu concept that makes life so much easier. We had also been aware of the performance problems. The commercial product has addressed those issues as well as a few others. Regarding your derivation of the eEMU software - we do not approve of releasing it under any licence (this includes GPL); which we are entitled = to do according to the licence the free eEMU software was released under.
Re: copyright problem (regarding eemu and compatibles(LONG))
Jörgen Hägg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've written a backwards compatible eemu-server and a set of clients. They are not using eemu-code, they uses a new protocol between them. (We use them internally right now and are quite happy with them.) IANAL: I think he is wrong. But I only knows european (danish) copyright laws. There shouldn't be any problems with anything but you compatibility layer, right? Would it be posibble to make a clean-room implementation of the compatibility layer? (It is properly modulized, right? How much code is it?)
Re: copyright problem (regarding eemu and compatibles(LONG))
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would it be posibble to make a clean-room implementation of the compatibility layer? And why would that be necessary? It migth take shorter time than convincing a judge that it's not covered by the company's copyright. Clean-room implementation could be used any-time where you want to make sure that no code has been shared. (which we might be interested in here)
Re: License issues with fortune packages?
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:27:52PM -0700, John Galt wrote: Fair use is fair use, and therefore not subject to restrictions. Yeah, but fair use tends to blur when profit is made off of the use. In main, it is likely that CD distributor foo makes a bit of cash off the sale (hence the reasoning behind the no commercial use clauses making non-free). This may invalidate fair use or at least stretch the reasoning a little farther than necessary. Debian itself is non-profit, but main may open up a can of worms. Just as an aside, non-profits have consistently gotten the benefit of the doubt in Fair Use determination, so that may tip the scale, but erring on the side of caution is definitely the preferable option. That stance is somewhat ridiculous. We don't know (or rather we do know, but you'd rather assume we don't), so just to be on the safe side you'd rather avoid doing anything because someone, somewhere might possibly send a lawyer after us for doing something? If you're that timid, you don't belong in the software market since there's always the threat that someone, somewhere will try to sue you whether they have a legal basis to do so or not. If you're really concerned about limitations of fair use, consider fortunes-mod first. The package outright makes no promises that things are even attributed correctly. While we have plenty of potential license issues to worry about, this really isn't one of them. I'm sure nobody at the media companies is afraid that a fan-created quote database is going to affect their sales, so they have no need to try and twist laws so they can attack anyone over it. And as they are, there are no laws I know of which would make distributing a fortune database (even as part of a larger collection sold for profit) anything but fair use, if properly attributed. -- 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 Sanaya you guys are all sick! sick sick sick I tell ya ;)
Looking for specific cases where software patents hurt free software
A friend sent me that message from RMS, I haven't seen it on debian, so I repost it to debian-devel and debian-legal. From: Richard Stallman Subject: Looking for specific cases where software patents hurt free software To: info-gnu@gnu.org Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:00:08 -0700 (MST) [Please repost this widely wherever appropriate] We would like to collect information about cases where free software has been harmed by software patents--that is, cases where a free program has been withdrawn from use or interfered with, or where a feature was taken out or never written in the first place, because of the danger of a patent. We hope to use this information to argue against the system of software patents, especially in Europe where the question has become a live political issue (see www.freepatents.org). If you know of such a case, please write to patent-examples@gnu.org and tell us what happened. Ideally we would like to know the name of the program, its developer's name and email address or other coordinates, what happened to the program, and the patent number. If you know those things, please include them in your report. But if you don't have all of that information, please write anyway and tell us whatever you know. For instance, if you can tell us how to contact the program's developer, we can probably get the rest of the information from the developer. If you can tell us just the program's name, we may be able to find the developer. We may write back to you to try to get more details; even leads for getting more details may be useful. Please send your information to patent-examples@gnu.org rather than to me personally, so that we can collect the responses efficiency.
Licence of FastCGI
Hi, I noticed that the package libapache-mod-fastcgi mysteriously disappeared from the archive but still referenced at packages.d.o. I guess this comes from its licence. Why is this licence considered as non-free? Thanks. This FastCGI application library source and object code (the Software) and its documentation (the Documentation) are copyrighted by Open Market, Inc (Open Market). The following terms apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files. Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing terms described here, but the modified Software and Documentation must be used for the sole purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other purpose. If modifications to this Software and Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must protect Open Market's proprietary rights in the Software and Documentation to the same extent as these licensing terms and must be clearly indicated on the first page of each file where they apply. Open Market shall retain all right, title and interest in and to the Software and Documentation, including without limitation all patent, copyright, trade secret and other proprietary rights. OPEN MARKET MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL OPEN MARKET BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR LOST DATA, EVEN IF OPEN MARKET HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED AS IS. OPEN MARKET HAS NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION. -- Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jerome.marant.free.fr
License considerations
Hi! I just want to ask the experts whether or not this license is DFSG free or not. To me, it looks that way, but I just want to make sure: ===[ cut ]=== This is the copyright notice for RA65, LINK65, LIBR65, and other Atari 8-bit programs. Said programs are Copyright 1989, by John R. Dunning. All rights reserved, with the following exceptions: Anyone may copy or redistribute these programs, provided that: 1: You don't charge anything for the copy. It is permissable to charge a nominal fee for media, etc. 2: All source code and documentation for the programs is made available as part of the distribution. 3: This copyright notice is preserved verbatim, and included in the distribution. You are allowed to modify these programs, and redistribute the modified versions, provided that the modifications are clearly noted. There is NO WARRANTY with this software, it comes as is, and is distributed in the hope that it may be useful. This copyright notice applies to any program which contains this text, or the refers to this file. This copyright notice is based on the one published by the Free Software Foundation, sometimes known as the GNU project. The idea is the same as theirs, ie the software is free, and is intended to stay that way. Everybody has the right to copy, modify, and re- distribute this software. Nobody has the right to prevent anyone else from copying, modifying or redistributing it. ===[ cut ]=== And also this, that covers another part of the program: ===[ cut ]=== CC65 C Library and Binutils (C) Copyright 1998 Ullrich von Bassewitz COPYING CONDITIONS This software is provided 'as-is', without any expressed or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution ===[ cut ]=== Please Cc me since I'm not subscribed to the list. Thanks in advance, -- \\// peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law: http://www.softwolves.pp.se/peter/reklampost.html
Re: copyright problem (regarding eemu and compatibles(LONG))
This is not legal advice, no solicitor-client relationship is established, etc. Actually, clean room implementations are typically used to avoid potential charges of copyright infringement. The basic concept is to take the ideas of the software, convey those ideas to untainted developers, and those developers then implement their own version of the software from which the ideas were taken. Clean room implementations aren't usually helpful in NDA and trade secret situations because the ideas are not allowed to be used due to contractual or confidential relationship restrictions. If the ideas are not allowed to be used, it would be difficult to re-implement in a clean room. Also, avoiding copyright infringement liability is not simply a matter of not using their code. Copyright infringement liability can attach where the code has only been unconsciously copied. Indeed, in the U.S., all that it is required to find copyright infringement liability is access to the copyrighted work and substantial similarity. So, development can be severely compromised simply by access to a copyrighted work since the later code can be found infringing of that copyrighted work simply if it is substantially similar although no original code was used. Consider also in the U.S. that infringement can exist on several levels of abstraction i.e. infringement can be found in the implementation, in the object structure, etc. so that there are many potential avenues for unconscious copying. Just some thoughts.. - Original Message - From: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 7:49 AM Subject: Re: copyright problem (regarding eemu and compatibles(LONG)) Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Would it be posibble to make a clean-room implementation of the compatibility layer? And why would that be necessary? As far as I know, if you're not using their code, then you don't have to worry about their copyright. When I read about people doing a clean-room implementation it's usually to avoid problems with trade secrets and NDAs rather than anything to do with copyright. Edmund -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
