Adpcm code--is this licence free?
Moi! I've been trying to merge support for decompressing ADPCM-coded files into the audiofile library. The patch was taken from upstream CVS. However, I'm uncertain whether the licence of one of the files included in the patch clashes with the LGPL that the rest of the code is subject to. I'd be happy if someone with more insight into legal wording gave me a clue. Here's the full text: /*** Copyright 1992 by Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. All Rights Reserved Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Stichting Mathematisch Centrum or CWI not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. STICHTING MATHEMATISCH CENTRUM DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL STICHTING MATHEMATISCH CENTRUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. **/ I'm worried about the 'without fee' part. Does this translate into: - You don't have to pay any royalties to the Mathematisch Centrum if you use this code, or - If you use this code, you may not charge any money for it? Comments? Regards, Daniel.
Re: Adpcm code--is this licence free?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:50:08AM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: I'm worried about the 'without fee' part. Does this translate into: - You don't have to pay any royalties to the Mathematisch Centrum if you use this code, or - If you use this code, you may not charge any money for it? It was quite obvious to me that they intended the first sense. However, I would think that a clarfication would be crucial. Some copyright holders have really tried to abuse wording loopholes (/me looks at UW).
Re: Adpcm code--is this licence free?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:27:58 -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: It was quite obvious to me that they intended the first sense. As a side note, CWI (the Mathematisch Centrum) have prior experience in free software related licensing issues as e.g. Python was originally developed there. One option is to ask them to clarify the without fee in a way similar to what the Artistic license does: Freely Available means that no fee is charged for the item itself, though there may be fees involved in handling the item. It also means that recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they received it. Ray -- POPULATION EXPLOSION Unique in human experience, an event which happened yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: Adpcm code--is this licence free?
On 18-Sep-01, 02:50 (CDT), Daniel Kobras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, [...] I'm worried about the 'without fee' part. Does this translate into: While I agree that it not as clear as it could be, this seems to be a fairly common way of expressing the idea that no payment needs to be made to the copyright holder, and we have previously accepted licenses with identical wording and DFSG free. Steve -- Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adpcm code--is this licence free?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:27:58AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: It was quite obvious to me that they intended the first sense. However, I would think that a clarfication would be crucial. Some copyright holders have really tried to abuse wording loopholes (/me looks at UW). Alas the code is pretty ancient (1992), and neither the code, nor the CWI pages offer references on who to contact regarding ADPCM. Anyway, I've found out the code is not only used by current Debian packages of xwave and xmp, but according to legal notices also by some commercial packages. Now I believe HP lawyers letting slip this licence into their products is a good indication that we can safely include it as well. Objections? Regards, Daniel.
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
The notion that standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc. IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they? No. Modification to the content must be allowed ... certainly not modification to the metadata. I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG. You can't take package X from main, change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for packages in the public domain). But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author wrote. Whether something is really metadata is a matter of interpretation, and may depend on the specific case. I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, except a specific exception for name changes. Personally, I think all those people/organisations that want to protect the sancticity of their standard should just require derivative works to bear different names (or versions). I agree. I'd also like to see people stop using these stupid patch license and write-your-own-GPL licenses. But I don't see how that matters. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Adpcm code--is this licence free?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:36:03PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: Alas the code is pretty ancient (1992), and neither the code, nor the CWI pages offer references on who to contact regarding ADPCM. Anyway, I've found out the code is not only used by current Debian packages of xwave and xmp, but according to legal notices also by some commercial packages. Now I believe HP lawyers letting slip this licence into their products is a good indication that we can safely include it as well. Objections? Yes. I have no objection to letting the code in, but I do take exception to this line of reasoning. Whether or not HP does it makes no difference to us. Even it currently being in Debian is no proof of it being acceptable; every so often we come across a license that has been in Debian for years, but that isn't DFSG. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
