Re: location of UnicodeData.txt
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 20021129T103609-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: UnicodeData.txt is used as an input data file for many programs, so there's no way around it. It probably shouldn't be. My interpretation, for one of my programs that uses Unicode, is that you can generate your own tables from that file. I, for example, use the file to generate a C source file, but I don't distribute it - the program sources include the generation script and the generated source file, but not UnicodeData. My interpretation is that the null-extraction is a kind of extraction. Even if that weren't so, it is still freely copyable, and IMO, DFSG free, because it can actually be changed by patch files (since anything that reads it can easily read something else too).
Windows XP
Title: Nova pagina 1 Window Xp Nao precisa de codigo de ativacao. Apenas 5000 ienes. em portugues ou Ingles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is this a free license?
License follows: --- UCD Terms of Use Disclaimer The Unicode Character Database is provided as is by Unicode, Inc. No claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No warranties of any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine applicability of information provided. If this file has been purchased on magnetic or optical media from Unicode, Inc., the sole remedy for any claim will be exchange of defective media within 90 days of receipt. This disclaimer is applicable for all other data files accompanying the Unicode Character Database, some of which have been compiled by the Unicode Consortium, and some of which have been supplied by other sources. Limitations on Rights to Redistribute This Data Recipient is granted the right to make copies in any form for internal distribution and to freely use the information supplied in the creation of products supporting the UnicodeTM Standard. The files in the Unicode Character Database can be redistributed to third parties or other organizations (whether for profit or not) as long as this notice and the disclaimer notice are retained. Information can be extracted from these files and used in documentation or programs, as long as there is an accompanying notice indicating the source. --- End of license. Discussion: 1) it appears not to allow modification of the file. The only operation permitted is extraction. 2) while extraction is permitted, no explicit right to redistribute the extracted (derived) information is granted. Note: I have no interest in whether DSFG compatible programs can be created using this data. Clearly, they can. Is a file under this license, or a file mechanically derived from such a file DSFG free? Jim Penny
Re: Is this a free license?
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) it appears not to allow modification of the file. The only operation permitted is extraction. Both Sam Hartman and I agreed that while modification might not be permitted, distribution of patch files for the purpose of effective modification *is* easily possible for any program that reads the file. So this is not a problem for distributing the verbatim file in Debian. 2) while extraction is permitted, no explicit right to redistribute the extracted (derived) information is granted. You can *use* the extracted information in documentation or programs, and I think in context it's clear that this use is intended to allow even Microsoft to distribute the program without license, and certainly therefore a free program. Note: I have no interest in whether DSFG compatible programs can be created using this data. Clearly, they can. Is a file under this license, or a file mechanically derived from such a file DSFG free? In the case of the Unicode data file, yes. There is no need to decide such a question in a hypothetical case. Thomas
Re: Is this a free license?
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:58:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) it appears not to allow modification of the file. The only operation permitted is extraction. Both Sam Hartman and I agreed that while modification might not be permitted, distribution of patch files for the purpose of effective modification *is* easily possible for any program that reads the file. So this is not a problem for distributing the verbatim file in Debian. 2) while extraction is permitted, no explicit right to redistribute the extracted (derived) information is granted. You can *use* the extracted information in documentation or programs, and I think in context it's clear that this use is intended to allow even Microsoft to distribute the program without license, and certainly therefore a free program. Note: I have no interest in whether DSFG compatible programs can be created using this data. Clearly, they can. Is a file under this license, or a file mechanically derived from such a file DSFG free? In the case of the Unicode data file, yes. There is no need to decide such a question in a hypothetical case. Thomas So, does that not make qmail free? There is no problem in distributing the unchanged tarball, and we are, after all, simply distributing a patchset that modifies it to support FHS. More and More Puzzledly Yours. Jim Penny
Re: Is this a free license?
Scripsit Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, does that not make qmail free? No. Qmail is non-free because we can't distribute modified *binaries*. In the case of Unicode tables, that is covered by the extraction clause. -- Henning Makholm Hi! I'm an Ellen Jamesian. Do you know what an Ellen Jamesian is?
Re: Is this a free license?
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, does that not make qmail free? There is no problem in distributing the unchanged tarball, and we are, after all, simply distributing a patchset that modifies it to support FHS. Two important differences: 1) Qmail prohibits unapproved patches; Unicode does not. Unicode welcomes modification of the data they provide (extraction, remember), qmail prohibits it. 2) A qmail binary can only be distributed if compiled from the approved qmail source. A unicode-implementing program (or program that uses data exctracted from Unicode) contains no such restriction, you can implement part of Unicode, you can use the data to implement something totally contrary to the spirit of Unicode, you can do what you want with it. Qmail, no deal. Thomas
Re: Is this a free license?
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 06:02:23PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote: So, does that not make qmail free? There is no problem in distributing the unchanged tarball, and we are, after all, simply distributing a patchset that modifies it to support FHS. If I remember correctly, the license of Qmail forbids even patches. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Is this a free license?
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:21:30AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, does that not make qmail free? No. Qmail is non-free because we can't distribute modified *binaries*. In the case of Unicode tables, that is covered by the extraction clause. Let me rephrase that, is the qmail-installer not free? We can distribute the unmodified tarball. We can (and do) use the extraction program tar. We then mechanically patch the extracted files, build, and install the result. I.e., suppose the post-inst of qmail-src invoked build-qmail and dpkg -i qmail automatically; is that not exactly a distribute and patch system? How is this incompatible with DJB's license? How does this differ from distributing UnicodeData.txt and then patching it? We aren't patching UnicodeData.txt per say, we would distribute a set of additional characters and excluded characters, and programs that *read* UnicodeData.txt could read those too. Unicode permits this, since they don't make any restrictions on what *other* things a program that uses an extraction of unicode might do. There is, importantly, no rule that you do the extraction for the purpose of correctly implementing Unicode. In the case of qmail, there *is* a rule that prohibits just this, and so it would be a subterfuge to use an installer to achieve something that cannot be achieved directly: a binary that uses qmail source, but also isn't vanilla qmail. Unicode is *different*, because the end result of the patch (a program that uses unicode data, but also other stuff, and doesn't do Unicode at all) *is* allowed by the license. So that means that Unicode allows a program that implements a variant of Unicode, but (possibly) places a restriction on the mechanism used. Qmail does not allow the variant in the first place, and changing around the mechanism can't change that fact. Thomas
Re: Is this a free license?
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:11:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the case of qmail, there *is* a rule that prohibits just this, and so it would be a subterfuge to use an installer to achieve something that cannot be achieved directly: a binary that uses qmail source, but also isn't vanilla qmail. qmail prohibits distribution of modified binaries. So qmail-src, provided by (not part of) Debian, distributes qmail source, and a collection of patches, and a utility to apply the patches and automate compilation. How is the status quo not a subterfuge ... to achieve something that cannot be achieved directly? Thomas
Re: Is this a free license?
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:11:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the case of qmail, there *is* a rule that prohibits just this, and so it would be a subterfuge to use an installer to achieve something that cannot be achieved directly: a binary that uses qmail source, but also isn't vanilla qmail. qmail prohibits distribution of modified binaries. So qmail-src, provided by (not part of) Debian, distributes qmail source, and a collection of patches, and a utility to apply the patches and automate compilation. How is the status quo not a subterfuge ... to achieve something that cannot be achieved directly? Courts care not about the technical details of *how* you copy, but the fact that you copy. You cannot copy qmail *at all* if you are making a modified binary with it. This means you cannot copy qmail and then do with it what you want to. And you cannot go out of your way to help someone else do it, if you know they would be violating the copyright (that's called contributory infringement). The general rule is to look at the *total result* and see if that amounts to violating the law. The law mostly enjoins *results* and not *means*. Consider, for example: Whether it's legal for me to drop rocks off my roof depends intimately on the rest of the circumstances. It is not correct to say you may drop rocks off your roof without fear of prison, and it is not correct to say you may not drop rocks off your roof. Rather, it depends on the details of the particular situation. Similarly for copyright infringement. Looking to the actual copying step in isolation might tell you that the copying step *in isolation* is legal, but the very same copying step might be illegal if the surrounding context changes. Thomas
Re: Is this a free license?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Courts care not about the technical details of *how* you copy, but the fact that you copy. You cannot copy qmail *at all* if you are making a modified binary with it. This means you cannot copy qmail and then do with it what you want to. And you cannot go out of your way to help someone else do it, if you know they would be violating the copyright (that's called contributory infringement). http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html Why should I believe you instead of Dan? Do you have a counter to the cite of Galoob v. Nintendo? Please note that I'm not arguing that Debian should act on the basis of Dan's legal interpretation. Doing so is not conservative, and I understand that Debian has a conservative approach in this regard, and I think the reasons for that conservative approach are valid. But you're making flat statements as if they were known fact, and the available information does not seem to support that. If what you meant to say was that it's unclear whether this is allowed or not and Debian shouldn't take a chance, I would probably agree. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Is this a free license?
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Courts care not about the technical details of *how* you copy, but the fact that you copy. You cannot copy qmail *at all* if you are making a modified binary with it. This means you cannot copy qmail and then do with it what you want to. And you cannot go out of your way to help someone else do it, if you know they would be violating the copyright (that's called contributory infringement). http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html Why should I believe you instead of Dan? Do you have a counter to the cite of Galoob v. Nintendo? I'm not contradicting Dan at all. Dan is quite right for the case he considers. But this is a different kind of case entirely. Qmail says you may not copy this if you do X, Y, or Z with it. That's not what Microsoft says; you don't have to agree with the Microsoft license because it's a *shrinkwrap* license which tries to *restrict* rights that the owner of a copy would normally have, and Dan's argument is that the only way to restrict such rights is a *real* contract (meaning, something you actually signed). Qmail has a *different* kind of setup (indeed, it has the setup usual for free software): it says you can't copy this *at all* unless you agree to these terms. Like the GPL, you are free to reject the Omail license, but then you are left with no rights at all. And while the copy of Microsoft Office that you buy still has rights even if Microsoft takes a bunch away, with the case of qmail, you *didn't* purchase anything, and you have no rights to copy *anything*--to even *get* the first copy--except under the terms of the license. This is the fundamental difference between right-granting licenses (such as Qmail, the X license, the GPL, etc), and right-restricting licenses (like the Microsoft ones). The purchaser of a copy gets certain rights, and can't have those restricted without a real contract--that's Dan's argument. But it doesn't apply to something where you *didn't* purchase anything and you *don't* have those rights. So that's why you, the person downloading qmail, don't have the right to violate the license--because the license only *grants* rights where you would have none, unlike Microsoft, where the license tries to *restrict* rights that have been already granted at the point of sale. Debian is in a different position; Debian would be a contributory infringer if we put up a piece of software whose sole purpose is to help people violating the qmail license. And, even if there were no prohibition in law of contributory infringement, it would still not be nice for us to provide packages that our users cannot legally use for their intended purpose--that just serves to screw our users over. Note that Dan says: What does all this mean for the free software world? Once you've legally downloaded a program, you can compile it. You can run it. You can modify it. You can distribute your patches for other people to use. If you think you need a license from the copyright holder, you've been bamboozled by Microsoft. As long as you're not distributing the software, you have nothing to worry about. In the case of qmail, you cannot legally download the program if your intention is to do one of the prohibited things with it--so the first step of the case Dan outlines doesn't even get going. Thomas
Re: Is this a free license?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Qmail says you may not copy this if you do X, Y, or Z with it. I must be missing something obvious, since I don't see anything on: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html that says that. Quite to the contrary, it explicitly states: | You may distribute copies of qmail-1.03.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum | 622f65f982e380dbe86e6574f3abcb7c. There are no conditions placed on that grant of permission. The remainder of the page discusses the requirements for distribution of modified versions. Distributing the tarball, patches, and a script to compile them is not distribution of a modified version. On http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html, Dan states explicitly: | Note that, since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a | patch, it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a | patch. So Dan certainly appears to believe that one can distribute the qmail source code along with a patch to that code and a script to compile it, based on his statements on his web pages. That puts me back to trying to understand why I should believe one of you over the other. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Is this a free license?
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Dan certainly appears to believe that one can distribute the qmail source code along with a patch to that code and a script to compile it, based on his statements on his web pages. That puts me back to trying to understand why I should believe one of you over the other. I'm not particularly exercised about the case of qmail; I haven't thought about it all that seriously. It was brought up by someone else who thought that if UnicodeData.txt was DFSG-free, then qmail should be too. The Dan-Bernstein-style reasons why qmail's license is unenforceable (and thus qmail must be DFSG-free), if they are good reasons, are entirely separate from that previous question. I would note that patch files for software are generally thought to be derivative works, and so I don't see any basis for his claim that they are not. (Note that the patch files for the Unicode data case are rather different in the relevant respects from source code patches, and so are not derivative works.) I don't think Dan can rely on much precedent; the cases he's talking about do *not* stand for the proposition that he goes on to talk about later. The point here is a very general one. Yes, 17 USC 117 gives the owner of a copy certain rights. But that does not mean that you can therefore exercise those rights in the free and clear. Some exercises of those rights might run afoul of the murder statutes. Or the treason statutes. (Does Dan think that because you can distribute patch files, you must therefore be able to distribute patch files that expose classified state secrets?) So yes, you have the rights *granted by that section*, but only in *general*, and not to the exclusion of *other* legal provisions. Your actions, in order to be legal, must *both* be legal in each step, *and* be legal in the total effect of your actions. And, dividing the actions up between multiple cooperating parties doesn't change things either. So the cases that Dan is talking about apply *only* to the particular steps, but whether the total effect is infringing is a *separate* question. In the Supreme Court cases he cites, there is no claim that the total effect is infringing, but only the particular steps. But in the cases that apply for qmail (or KDE, or the GPL), it is the total effect that matters. Thomas
