Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders every document non-free or only those that include invariant sections. Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free documentation license, as long as the invariant sections are not overly long and do not contain essential material. However, debian-legal assumes that the GFDL with invariant sections is non-free, and there seems to be a majority for a general rejection as a free _software_ license (but the poll was worded quite carefully, after the software is documentation dogma). -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, netscape.net, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.
Re: Forgent starts litigating JPEG...
On Apr 26, 2004, at 18:41, Florian Weimer wrote: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is JPEG any different than GIF was I don't remember that anyone was actually sued for using the LZW compression algorithm (certainly not a company rather close to Debian). Maybe the case was so clear that every paid royalties. In this case, it could be a good sign that this is taken to the courts. If Apple, et. al. decide to actually fight the patent in court, then I think we could wait until the outcome of the case. Obviously, if Forgent wins, we'd have to act quickly then. OTOH, if this is settled out of court (I suspect it will be) then what should we do? I think we would lose a noticeable portion of our distribution --- and a good deal of the functionality --- if we dropped every program that touches JPEG. It's not like there is an alternative, like PNG was for GIF, either (at least I don't know of another photographic image format). The JPEG group thinks there is prior art; hopefully the 30 defendants decide to argue so in court.
Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Apr 26, 2004, at 20:32, Florian Weimer wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders every document non-free or only those that include invariant sections. Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free documentation license, as long as the invariant sections are not overly long and do not contain essential material. I agree that this position --- and similar ones --- were voiced by several people. However, for the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that: 1) None of the proponents of this position came up with a good definition of software vs. documentation. (Personally, I think it may be doable for many cases, but there will be many other things which defy classification.) 2) None of the proponents of this position came up with good reasons why the freedoms we consider so important for software don't apply to documentation. 3) None of the proponents of this position came up with a list of what should be changed in the DFSG to get the Debian Free Documentation Guidelines, nor did they even begin to write the DFDG. And, most importantly, that the above three aren't on-topic here; rather, they belong on -project or (in the event of a proposal) -vote.
Re: The QPL licence
On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote: I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable clauses? The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause, which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern --- to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other software, for example.]
Re: The QPL licence
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] This license is governed by the Laws of the Netherlands. Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court. I'm not particularly familiar with these clauses, but isn't the second sentence a choice of venue? It doesn't feel free. Neither does it to me. It seems to me that it means that if the author for some reason decides to sue me for breach of license, I have to go to Amsterdam to protest my innocense. That is what this provision means, according to Dutch law. You're agreeing that Dutch law will be used to interpret this license and that the Dutch court in Amsterdam has jurisdiction. Under Dutch law, a one-sided license grant is normally treated as a contract. The only requirements for something to be a contract is that an offer is accepted. No consideration etc. necessary. I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get the court to use Dutch law, using this clause. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: The QPL licence
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause, which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern --- to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other software, for example.] It does seem beyond basic copyright, and in EULA/contract territory. After all, copyright law doesn't prohibit mentioning features and use of copyrighted material in advertising material (as far as I know), which BSD#4 tries to limit. I wonder: if a court finds that a condition was unenforcable, and lacking a clause like GPL#7, would the individual clause or the entire license be considered invalid? If the latter, licenses with unenforcable clauses should probably be considered non-free, as the license could be terminated as a result. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
PO == Per Olofsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PO On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders every document non-free or only those that include invariant sections. The result is that... er... I am confused as well... Could somebody enlighten me? When the GFDL was originally inspected, the conclusion was that the GFDL was free as long as there were no invariant sections (and maybe some other sections). Since then, other problems have been discovered that make all GFDL documents non-free. PO I think most of them are summarised [1]here. PO [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html Unfortunately, the draft position statement doesn't explain, which section of DFSG is violated in such a case and why. I can understand there are problems with GFDL, but I can't see the direct DFSG violation if no Invariant Sections etc. are present. Could somebody explain this, please? Milan Zamazal -- And why?
Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Milan Zamazal wrote: Unfortunately, the draft position statement doesn't explain, which section of DFSG is violated in such a case and why. It actually does, for every single instance where -legal located a problem. Scroll down, and read carefully. [Or search for DFSG.] Don Armstrong -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Forgent starts litigating JPEG...
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's likely that the issue will become moot. One patent in their portfolio expires between 2007 and 2014. Random patents in their portfolio that aren't relevant to JPEG aren't interesting. This one expires in October. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Auto-Responder (info@mecanicimport.com)
Auto-Responder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Thank you for your mail! I will be out of the office from the 21 April till 1 May, I will answer you as soon as i return. Best regards, Rodolphe - Visit our webpage at www.mecanicimport.com - See also ***NEW BOOK on BIZZARRINI*** (http://www.mecanicimport.com/Bizzarrini_02.htm)
Re: The QPL licence
@ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet : I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get the court to use Dutch law, using this clause. I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US, and most certainly not in Brasil. Here, the only law that can be used in court is Brazilian law. As the unlawful fact (copying/distributing software in discordance with the license) ocurred in Brasil, any damages and criminal penalties must be pursued in a Brazilian court, under Brazilian law. International choice of venue is a NOP under Brazilian law. But... the (rightful IMHO) opinion here in -legal seems to be that if something is a NOP in a license but the fact of it being a NOP goes obviously against the will of the copyright owner, then this renders the license non-DFSG-free. -- br,M
Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
@ 27/04/2004 11:31 : wrote Milan Zamazal : PO == Per Olofsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PO On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders every document non-free or only those that include invariant sections. The result is that... er... I am confused as well... Could somebody enlighten me? When the GFDL was originally inspected, the conclusion was that the GFDL was free as long as there were no invariant sections (and maybe some other sections). Since then, other problems have been discovered that make all GFDL documents non-free. PO I think most of them are summarised [1]here. PO [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html Unfortunately, the draft position statement doesn't explain, which section of DFSG is violated in such a case and why. I can understand there are problems with GFDL, but I can't see the direct DFSG violation if no Invariant Sections etc. are present. Could somebody explain this, please? Milan Zamazal man, have you *read* the thing? Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) :: Section 2 (VERBATIM COPYING): 1. is not restricted to distribution (non-free for a lot of reasons discussed in other recent threads here in -legal, the QPL one) 2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): DFSG#1 3. outlaws even chmod -r in a normal unix fs Section 3 (Copying in quantity): Forces to distribute transparent (source) along with the opaque (binary) form: forced distribution of goes against the spirit of the DFSG, altough not its letter. Apply similarities with the Desert Island test. And, of course Invariant Sections; which is not of interest in the case, because it seems that everybody _knows_ why those are non-DFSG-free. HTH -- br,M
Re: Forgent starts litigating JPEG...
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's likely that the issue will become moot. One patent in their portfolio expires between 2007 and 2014. Random patents in their portfolio that aren't relevant to JPEG aren't interesting. This one expires in October. I asked a couple of days ago, but nobody replied. Does anyone know anything about the patent status of JPEG-2000? Is it safe to use it? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The QPL licence
Humberto Massa wrote: @ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet : I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get the court to use Dutch law, using this clause. I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US, and most certainly not in Brasil. I don't know Brazilian law. However, a choice of law is quite common in contracts. If a US court were to find that the parties did make a contract, it seems likely to me they would honor the parties' choice of law and venue. I do know Dutch law, and under Dutch law a choice of law is certainly respected in contracts, unless it's clearly totally inappropriate. And there has been quite some European caselaw that acknowledges the possibility. Here, the only law that can be used in court is Brazilian law. Interesting. So Brazil doesn't have any provision for people to agree on certain choice of law? It seems rather unusual. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote: DFSG#1: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Why does this state the license must permit distribution on a DRM medium? Not permitting distribution on a DRM medium restricts selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. It seems straightforward to me; I can't take the program, package it with something else (forming an aggregate software distribution), put it on a DRM medium and sell it, due to a license restriction. HM Section 3 (Copying in quantity): HM Forces to distribute transparent (source) along with the HM opaque (binary) form: forced distribution of goes against the HM spirit of the DFSG, altough not its letter. So this doesn't violate DFSG. Violating the spirit of the DFSG *is* violating the DFSG. Please don't insist that a set of guidelines be read as a set of strict rules. A lot of people try to do that, and it simply doesn't work. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
I will try again, before going home. @ 27/04/2004 18:03 : wrote Milan Zamazal : HM == Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HM man, have you *read* the thing? Yes. HM Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) :: I asked for a particular DFSG term which is violated and explanation of the violation. If you accompanied a similar thread in -legal, one month ago, you would see that it's not always possible to point an DFSG section, but sometimes you have to refer to the DFSG FAQ at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Especially Question 8. That said, HM Section 2 (VERBATIM COPYING): HM 1. is not restricted to distribution (non-free for a lot of HM reasons discussed in other recent threads here in -legal, the HM QPL one) USofA copyright law acts only on redistribution of software, not its use; any attempt to act on its use by a license is normally considered non-DFSG-free-ness by debian-legal. A Free Software license should not attempt to restrict what the user is already permitted to do within copyright law; it can only grant additional rights, even if under some conditions. I'm sorry, I don't have the necessary resources to read all the long threads here. IMO the position statement should be clear and contain proper explanation of the DFSG violation in its text. HM 2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): DFSG#1 DFSG#1: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Why does this state the license must permit distribution on a DRM medium? in the may not restrict words? This is the most clear case, here. The DFSG says the license may not restrict; the license restricts (saying you can't put in a DRM'd medium), so the license is not DFSG-free. HM 3. outlaws even chmod -r in a normal unix fs You probably refer to You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.. IANAL, so I don't know whether this applies to `chmod -R' and similar cases (e.g. `chmod -R' *may* actually mean you simply stop distributing the file and not that you obstruct or control its reading). I miss explanation here. chmod -R is d different from chmod -r, you know? but you used the right meaning... I'll explain (as in the Filadelphia movie, as if you was a 4yo): I made a copy. It's not my copyright, is other person. If I do chmod -r, it's a technical measure that obstructs others from further copying my copy. Hence, the affirmation above. HM Section 3 (Copying in quantity): HM Forces to distribute transparent (source) along with the HM opaque (binary) form: forced distribution of goes against the HM spirit of the DFSG, altough not its letter. So this doesn't violate DFSG. the G in DFSG is for guidelines; they are not a written-in-stone set of rules... they Guide, not Rule. You really should read the DFSG FAQ before doing this. Forced distribution of the source is also considered by debian-legal non-freeness. HM Apply similarities with the Desert Island test. I don't know what Desert Island test is. It's in the letter (a.) of the question 8 of the FAQ. HM And, of course Invariant Sections; which is not of interest in HM the case, because it seems that everybody _knows_ why those are HM non-DFSG-free. And additionally it's not of interest in the case, since I've explicitly said I ask about cases without Invariant Sections. Yes. Please note I understand and agree there are some problems with GFDL. What I do not understand is, how and why DFSG is violated. It's not any better after reading your answers. :-| As I said before, at least one case is absolutely, crystal clear as per the DFSG: the DRM restriction is absolutely forbidden by the DFSG#1, that states: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. . The GFDL clearly restricts redistribution so it can't use, p. ex., a DRM'd SmardMediaCard as de medium. Regards, Milan Zamazal Hope To Help, -- best regards, Massa
Re: Forgent starts litigating JPEG...
Måns Rullgård wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's likely that the issue will become moot. One patent in their portfolio expires between 2007 and 2014. Random patents in their portfolio that aren't relevant to JPEG aren't interesting. This one expires in October. I asked a couple of days ago, but nobody replied. Does anyone know anything about the patent status of JPEG-2000? Is it safe to use it? I don't know if the JPEG patent under discussion here also covers JPEG-2000. From what I saw in the JasPer discussion (in which the license progressed from extremely non-free to clearly DFSG-free and BSD-like), there are already several patents over the JPEG-2000 format, but the patent holders have stated that any conformant implementation (that implements the standard exactly) is always allowed. The patent holders also stated that they might choose to go after those who don't implement the standard, but so far they have not actually done so. For that reason, I would put JPEG-2000 in the category of all the other software in Debian that is probably covered by many different patents (progress bar, etc): leave it unless someone actually starts enforcing the patent, and decide what to do then, and in the meantime don't go looking for patents that affect the software. - Josh Triplett
Re: The QPL licence
@ 27/04/2004 18:47 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet : I do know Dutch law, and under Dutch law a choice of law is certainly respected in contracts, unless it's clearly totally inappropriate. And there has been quite some European caselaw that acknowledges the possibility. Here, the only law that can be used in court is Brazilian law. Interesting. So Brazil doesn't have any provision for people to agree on certain choice of law? It seems rather unusual. Not on contract law, and most certainly not in what our Author's Rights / Software law calls Software License Contracts (licenses). At least to the best of my knowledge (and IAA paralegal -- not a lawyer, tough) -- br,M
Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
Milan Zamazal wrote: HM == Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HM 2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): DFSG#1 DFSG#1: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Why does this state the license must permit distribution on a DRM medium? Surely it's implicit in 'may not restrict any party' that the licensed work must be distributable in any form the distributor chooses? As it stands, GFDL works cannot be distributed at all on DRM media and therefore if the distributor puts (for example) paragraphs from a GFDL manual in spoken form on a CSS, Region-coded DVD, he is restricted from distributing this DVD, which is an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources (If you take documentation to be software, which AFAIK, Debian does). Said example DVD is non-distributable (thus breaks DFSG #1) because of clause 2 of the GFDL, thus clause 2 of the GFDL can in some situations break DFSG #1, thus GFDL is in some situations non-free. To be Free, a license must not be non-free in any situation, thus GFDL is not Free. -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD
Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: However, I do agree that it's not necessary to fight this battle right now, as the OSL 2.0 is defective in other, less controversial, respects. I think it's not controversial that the OSL software patent clause is overbroad. Even if software patent retaliation clauses in general are acceptable, termination clauses based on patents applicable -- but not actually applied -- to software potentially discriminate against all holders of legitimate patents. Everyone seems to agree about this, at least. Well, I'm not going to argue with you over whether something is controversial or not. :) If it is, it should be easy to demonstrate ostensively, and since I have no citations to offer, I'll stipulate to your assertion -- at least for the time being. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SEPL (Swiss Ephemeris Public License)
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:38:33PM -0400, Steven Augart wrote: Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:51:05PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,: I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris: [...] This issue was discussed earlier. And the consensus seems to be (at least my opinion was) that this license is not DFSG free. Anybody have a URL to the list archives? http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00287.html Thanks! -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The QPL licence
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 10:25:17PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly more difficult. This restriction of the QPL is DFSG-free, but the other FWIW, I'm among those who believe this is a serious error, and that the DFSG should be amended to correct it. Freedom to fork is a fundamental to free software, and requiring patches is an onerous and unacceptable burden on that freedom. Amen! -- G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
contracts vs. licenses, OSI, and Debian (was: The QPL licence)
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:29:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: To veer off the subject a little, we don't like licenses which engage in too much contract-like behavior, because they're usually non-free. In particular, any license which requires that you agree to it in order to *use* it -- since use is not normally restricted by copyright law -- is trying to be a contract, and is also non-free. Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major media[3] and proprietary software[4][5] companies. I personally think this explains a great many of the divergences between Debian's assessment of licenses and OSI's. [1] http://opensource.org/docs/board.php [2] http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL19.pdf [3] http://www.ipjustice.org/321/321Studios.pdf [4] http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf [5] http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2003/10/18/115821/71 -- G. Branden Robinson|If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Debian GNU/Linux |pound of antipasto, would they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |cancel out, leaving him still http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hungry? -- Scott Adams signature.asc Description: Digital signature
non-freeness of 4-clause BSD license (was: The QPL licence)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause, which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern --- to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other software, for example.] It does seem beyond basic copyright, and in EULA/contract territory. I agree, which is why I think we need to rid Debian main of all occurences of the 4-clause BSD license. I filed many bugs about this years ago, so that the impact of passing a change to the DFSG that would unambiguously regard the forced-advertising clause of the old BSD license as non-free. Some of the bugs still open on this subject are: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123813 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123815 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123823 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123827 -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:32:05AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders every document non-free or only those that include invariant sections. Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free documentation license, as long as the invariant sections are not overly long and do not contain essential material. However, debian-legal assumes that the GFDL with invariant sections is non-free, and there seems to be a majority for a general rejection as a free _software_ license (but the poll was worded quite carefully, after the software is documentation dogma). I assume you're referring to this[1]. The poll was worded carefully, yes, but anyone who thought I was cleverly manipulating them could have simply marked the option: None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Only 2 out of 63 respondents selected that option. Your accusation of manipulation suggests to me that your message is far from objective. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[OT] Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:28:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: 2) None of the proponents of this position came up with good reasons why the freedoms we consider so important for software don't apply to documentation. That's easy. So we can ship more shit in main. W4R3Z G00D! PR1NCIPULZ BAD! Oh, wait. You said *good* reasons. Sorry. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion consists in a set of Debian GNU/Linux |things which the average man thinks [EMAIL PROTECTED] |he believes and wishes he was http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |certain of. -- Mark Twain signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Forgent starts litigating JPEG...
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:14:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:55AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing on its claim to an algorithm used in the popular JPEG picture file format. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,63200,00.html? tw=wn_bizhead_1 They've started suing. Is JPEG any different than GIF was, especially if this whole mess is settled out of court or worse won by the plaintiff? Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's likely that the issue will become moot. It has been speculated that this will trigger a defense based on the principle of laches, which is the civil-law counterpart to a statute of limitations. It's a way of pointing out in terms of a legal defense how mighty *convenient* it is for a patent holder to wait until 6 months before the termination of a 20-year patent term to sue anyone for infringement. It's interesting that political conservatives in the U.S., normally so hostile to civil plaintiffs, seem to find laches disgusting. Probably because a submarine patent is a means of collecting corporate welfare, which is a very conservative thing to do. -- G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are Debian GNU/Linux |venerable because they are more [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fruitful than the truths of little http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |men. -- Friedrich Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: contracts vs. licenses, OSI, and Debian (was: The QPL licence)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major media[3] and proprietary software[4][5] companies. I personally think this explains a great many of the divergences between Debian's assessment of licenses and OSI's. [2] http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL19.pdf This seems to be form contracts to ensure licenses are enforcable. I wonder if the OSI is actively recommending licenses that go beyond copyright law, or if contracts are being recommended even for licenses that do not. If the former, then I'd agree with you, since we tend to view most licenses that go beyond copyright law as non-free. If the latter, then his opinion seems to directly contradict Eben Moglen's: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least I tend to prefer the author's opinion over third-party interpretations. The author's opinion may not be completely relevant when there are hundreds of authors. Remember, the drivers are being linked to all other code in the kernel, and the license of that code (usually also GPL) must be followed. I don't know if there's any legal consensus on this among kernel developers (not being one myself). -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
[I'm not subcribed to -legal] Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least I tend to prefer the author's opinion over third-party interpretations. The author's opinion may not be completely relevant when there are hundreds of authors. Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors of kernel stuff. Remember, the drivers are being linked to all other code in the kernel, and the license of that code (usually also GPL) must be followed. I don't know if there's any legal consensus on this among kernel developers (not being one myself). From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel developers sees it as not-a-problem, and none is interested in suing his fellow developers. (Doing so may well result in the removal of that developer's contributions, as that would minimize the amount of damage.) Thiemo
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors of kernel stuff. Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing terms of those who are. From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel developers sees it as not-a-problem, and none is interested in suing his fellow developers. (Doing so may well result in the removal of that developer's contributions, as that would minimize the amount of damage.) That might be of little consolation to the people being sued for copyright infringement. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
[I'm not subscribed to -legal] Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors of kernel stuff. Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing terms of those who are. Exactly. An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue. From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel developers sees it as not-a-problem, and none is interested in suing his fellow developers. (Doing so may well result in the removal of that developer's contributions, as that would minimize the amount of damage.) That might be of little consolation to the people being sued for copyright infringement. The only one who can sue is a copyright holder, and he'll first have to sue the offender successfully over the alleged GPL violation. The potentially affected people don't seem to be overly concerned about that prospect. Thiemo
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue. How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting themselves at legal risk. This isn't a matter of a stance; this is a matter of trying to determine if we're violating the GPL. The only one who can sue is a copyright holder, and he'll first have to sue the offender successfully over the alleged GPL violation. The potentially affected people don't seem to be overly concerned about that prospect. Uh, but Debian (and everyone else distributing Debian) *is* the offender, being the ones potentially violating the GPL by distributing GPL-licensed software without complete source. (Again, I'm not certain whether there's a GPL problem here or not, but the answer is certainly relevant to Debian.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Thiemo Seufer wrote: [I'm not subscribed to -legal] Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors of kernel stuff. Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing terms of those who are. Exactly. An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue. As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of copyright infringement. If a fully working, tested solution to load non-free firmware from userland into the kernel (thus avoiding the linking problem) fell from the sky tomorrow, I suspect very few people would suggest that it was A Bad Thing, and that the kernel was better when it had potentially dubious, non-free blobs in it. In my opinion, the problem isn't the principle, merely the practicality: a delayed Sarge would be annoying, but the products that are necessary for an 'anally-free' Sarge would be of great benefit to users of both Debian, and Free Software in general. Clause four of (even the unamended) social contract, in my opinion, suggests that later is better than less free, and thus the amendment was The Right Thing, even though it may delay Sarge. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00964.html (emphasis mine) 4. *Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software* *We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.* We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We won't object to commercial software that is intended to run on Debian systems, and we'll allow others to create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial software, without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, *100% free software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use*. -- Lewis Jardine IANAL IANADD
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue. How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting themselves at legal risk. If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down Debian immediately. Btw, I'm pretty sure Debian violates every second software patent. This isn't a matter of a stance; this is a matter of trying to determine if we're violating the GPL. The hypothetical suing copyright holder says yes, the driver author says no. Both claims aren't easily dismissable. So there's no way to determine this beforehand. The only one who can sue is a copyright holder, and he'll first have to sue the offender successfully over the alleged GPL violation. The potentially affected people don't seem to be overly concerned about that prospect. Uh, but Debian (and everyone else distributing Debian) *is* the offender, being the ones potentially violating the GPL by distributing GPL-licensed software without complete source. The hypothetical suing copyright holder will have to prove the violation against the driver author, or at least get some court order, before he can go after distributors. At least that's how things are handled by german Urheberrecht, it seems to be handled similiar in the US WRT. (Standard Disclaimer: IANAL) (Again, I'm not certain whether there's a GPL problem here or not, but the answer is certainly relevant to Debian.) The answer is given by a court, and that's the moment it becomes relevant for Debian. Thiemo
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down Debian immediately. Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible license violation. -- Glenn Maynard
