Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute modifications under the same license through which I received the software. The author used a license which gets him a license to use my modifications in a proprietary way, but I don't get such a license for *his* changes. Actually, you can distribute your changes under the same license: the QPL. People who receive the software from you must grant you the same more-permissive license to their changes as well. I do agree that the QPL is full of asymmetry, but I don't think most of it is a DFSG problem, apart from the send changes upstream clause and the choice of venue clause. I don't think I can -- I have to distribute my changes as patches, so the initial author is still the author of the baseline work, not me. You are the initial author of your changes. Then I cannot distribute them solely under the QPL -- I also have to give the initial author of the main program a license to do proprietary things with my changes, and I also have to give recipients of my code a charge-free license to modify and distribute my code. But the QPL is not a charge-free license, so I can't use that. I've seen some disagreement with one or the other component of that, but I haven't seen an argument which dealt with both parts together -- the license given to the upstream author and that given to downstream recipients. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:27:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: I haven't promised the FSF anything, but I distribute and modify their software all the time. Maybe I don't agree to the GPL. Maybe, someday, I'll fail to note my changes at the top of every file! Bwahaha. And if I ever do that, what would they be able to do to me? Get mad because I broke a promise? No. Get mad because I violated their copyright? Yes. The GPL is not a promise I've made. It's an offer, and a nonrevocable one at that, from them to everybody else. Then how does this differ from the QPL exactly? If you fail to comply with the terms of the license you're in violation of the copyright. You never made a promise to the lessor with the QPL by your interpretation of the word, so I see no difference here between the two licenses that would allow one to be non-free. You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution to him, not promises to obey the license. There is a promise -- a contract -- which comes into existence when I distribute modifications. I promise to hold copies of those forever in order to supply the initial author with copies on request. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:07:11 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: A license that goes out of its way to make freedoms hard to assert (possibly with the goal of preventing them from actually being asserted) shouldn't be considered free. Making freedom harder to assert is restricting freedom. Indeed. An example: modifying a binary executable through reverse engineering or by disassembling/decompiling it is clearly possible, though difficult. In order to exercise our freedom to modify free programs, we demand access to source code. -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program Francesco |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom! Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO, | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0 pgpD5JKTc9u84.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: compatibility of OpenSSL and GPL'ed plugins
* Marco d'Itri: Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time) are distributed with the program. Is distribution of this package a GPL violation? If the plug-in is written from scratch (so it doesn't contain 3rd party GPLed code) and it's specifically written as a plug-in to the program, I'd suppose that the author implicitly gives permission to dynamically link it to the program (and other plug-ins). If one of the conditions don't apply, it's a tough question. 8-)
Re: compatibility of OpenSSL and GPL'ed plugins
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 11:13:41AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time) are distributed with the program. Is distribution of this package a GPL violation? If the plug-in is written from scratch (so it doesn't contain 3rd party GPLed code) and it's specifically written as a plug-in to the program, I'd suppose that the author implicitly gives permission to dynamically link it to the program (and other plug-ins). Or, it may be the author's intent to only permit source distribution. Assuming that the author doesn't understand the consequences of his chosen license is not a sound legal strategy. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
Hi, a few month ago stellarium was removed from debian because of uncleared copyright info. The upstream author made a great work and we have now all the information we could expect. However, my question is what should we do (Upstream author and me) in order to upload the package in main. The question is about pictures in the Public domain, or Picture downloaded on website such as NASA. About the Hipparcos star catalog we have the proof that if feets DFSG. (see copyright) [from the debian/copyright file] About the textures: --- They are comming form different sources, clearly identified below, however not all of them are free. Thus, this package cannot be included in main and remains non-free. Included source code * glpng PNG loader library for OpenGL v1.45 (10/07/00) by Ben Wyatt ben (at) wyatt100.freeserve.co.uk * Iniparser library Copyright (c) 2000 by Nicolas Devillard. * The stellastro and stellplanet libraries are mainly subsets of the libnova library (GPL) by Liam Girdwood (liam (at) nova-ioe.org) * The orbit.cpp/h and solve.h files are directly borrowed from Celestia (Chris Laurel). (GPL) * Other pieces of code and ideas are from Celestia too. Data * The Hipparcos star catalog From ESA (European Space Agency) and the Hipparcos mission. ref. ESA, 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA SP-1200 * The solar system data mainly comes from Celestia. Graphics * All graphics are copyrighted by Fabien Chéreau except the ones mentioned below: * The Earth texture was created by NASA using data from the MODIS instrument aboard the Terra satellite. Further information is available from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/ * Mars texture map is from James Hastings-Trew's collection. * Moon texture map is Courtesy USGS Astrogeology Research Program, http://astrogeology.usgs.gov. (Public Domain) * All other planet maps from David Seal's site: http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/ * The snowy landscape textures are from the GPL game tuxracer. * The fullsky milky way panorama is created by Axel Mellinger, University of Potsdam, Germany. Further information and more pictures available from http://home.arcor-online.de/axel.mellinger/ * All messiers nebula pictures except m31, Orion and the Pleiades from the Grasslands Observatory : http://www.3towers.com * M31, Orion and the Pleiades pictures come from Herm Perez : http://home.att.net/~hermperez/default.htm [../end of copyright file/...] In attachement, you could find the whole copyright file I've written for stellarium. Do you believe that I can upload it to main ? If no what should be done? You can find the package and its source at : http://machard.org/debian/ Thanks in advance, P.S. Please CC: me on reply, I am not on this list -- Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://debian.org GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87 This package was debianized by Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:03:19 +0200. This package was inspired by the previous maintainer Cédric Delfosse before it has been removed from Debian for copyright troubles. It was downloaded from http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/stellarium/stellarium-0.6.0.tar.gz?download Upstream Author: Fabien Chéreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright: GPL-2 (see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2) The astronomical data are from the Hipparcos data catalogue of ESA (the European Space Agency). We'd like to acknowledge ESA for the valuable data of this catalogue and the Hipparcos mission. WHY IS THE PACKAGE IN NON-FREE: --- Stellarium can be broken as 3 parts: - the source code, - the astronomical data, - the textures. About the source code: -- The source code is licensed as GPL, so there is no problem with it. About the astronomical data: The astronomical data are from the Hipparcos data catalogue. Here, I will copy a message sent by a scientist of the Hipparcos project, to the maintainer of the Debian spacechart package: ESA wishes to encourage the use and visibility of its results. I can confirm that you are essentially free to make use of the Hipparcos data as you wish (for example, as you have described). What ESA is does expect, as you have noted, is a suitable (and suitably prominent) message acknowledging ESA and the Hipparcos mission. The details are left to your discretion. Good luck regards Michael Perryman Project Scientist,
Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
Josh Triplett wrote:
A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
- Josh Triplett
Trademarks are fundamentally different from copyrights. Things which are
too small for copyright protection (dictionary words ('windows', 'shell'
for example), geometric symbols, etc.) are still trademarkable. As I
understand it, you don't need to be the author of a trademark, merely
the one trading under it, to have trademark rights.
In addition, the very act of using a symbol, word, etc. as a trademark
gives it legal protection. The license :
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Trademark license:
You may use this logo or a modified version of it to refer to
Debian. You
may not use this logo, or any confusingly similar logo, to refer to
anything else in a way which might cause confusion with Debian.
Final clarification:
(If you have a modified version of this logo which is not confusingly
similar to the original, you may use it for any purpose.)
Is simply stating the protection trademarks have under the law anyway.
The Debian logo (and the word 'Debian') is already licensed under such a
trademark license, simply because Debian has been trading under it.
Imagine you make a picture (a cute lil' bumblebee, for instance), and
release it under a Free copyright license. Would it be the case that a
third party could start the 'Bumblebee Car Wash Company', use your Free
graphic as their logo, and register it as a trademark? Could they then
use their trademark to stop you using your free image? They wouldn't be
infringing your copyright because of your free license.
--
Lewis Jardine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nathanael Matthew Garrett wrote: I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as free. Nathanael I would assume that if a licensor put such a clause in Nathanael their license, they intend to use it. I don't think this is a good assumption based on my involvement in development of legal documents. Most lawyers need an explicit reason to not include something, not a reason to include something. --Sam
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't necessarily object to the point that the dissident test is trying to make (not that I necessarily agree with it), but I do object to its phrasing. It's obviously more concerned with banning forced distribution of source than it is with the safety of dissidents. It should just be replaced with Forced distribution of source to anyone other than the recipient is non-free, and then we can have a nice big argument about whether that should be in the DFSG or not. Steve Sounds good. I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much more clear than it is now. --Sam
Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:34:08PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
- Josh Triplett
Trademarks are fundamentally different from copyrights. Things which are
too small for copyright protection (dictionary words ('windows', 'shell'
for example), geometric symbols, etc.) are still trademarkable.
You cannot trademark a dictionary word. Microsoft *lost* that lawsuit.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much more clear than it is now. I think it derives directly from DFSG#1--certainly the spirit, even if the letter is debated. I think adding new guidelines that are subsets of existing ones would set a very bad precedent, since it implies that the DFSG is to be read literally, as a set of rules, instead of a set of guidelines. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard writes: On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much more clear than it is now. I think it derives directly from DFSG#1--certainly the spirit, even if the letter is debated. I think adding new guidelines that are subsets of existing ones would set a very bad precedent, since it implies that the DFSG is to be read literally, as a set of rules, instead of a set of guidelines. Do you not believe that would be better than the current situation where we have regular disagreements on some of this? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site... -- Simon Booth
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Personally, I think all of our tests should be explicitly tied to some practical concern so we have some basis for reasoning when unanticipated situations arise.] This is really about freedoms. You don't want to *lose* freedoms (the right to criticize the author, sue third parties, etc.) by getting a free software license. I vehemently disagree. That's interesting. I propose the following license then. Is it free in your opinion? It doesn't technically violate any DFSG clauses, but I think it's self-evidently non-free, because it takes away fundamental freedoms. Anyone (you) may use, copy, modify, and distribute copies (modified or unmodified) of this software, provided that: (1) You must never say or write anything negative about the authors. (2) You agree never to exercise your fair use, fair dealing, or other similar rights regarding this software. (3) You agree not to use this program at all, in any way, without agreeing to this license. (3) You agree never to sue anyone over anything. (4) You agree to allow the authors to search your home and person without notice at any time. (5) You agree to waive your right to trial by jury in all criminal or civil cases brought against you. Debian is not about freedom in general. It is about free software, a loose term which we have carefully defined. Wrong; the DFSG do not comprise a definition. Insisting on freeing the world at the same time is too much. Yes, that's fine, we agree. The world does not belong in Debian main either. If someone wants to package it, it should go in non-free. ;-)
Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
Sam Hartman wrote: Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nathanael Matthew Garrett wrote: I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as free. Nathanael I would assume that if a licensor put such a clause in Nathanael their license, they intend to use it. I don't think this is a good assumption based on my involvement in development of legal documents. Most lawyers need an explicit reason to not include something, not a reason to include something. That is, to say the least, disturbing. Shall we assume that no clauses are intended to be used, ever, unless we have explicit information to the contrary? That would be an interesting way to analyze what rights you get from a license. It would mean that it was *very* easy for a free work to turn out to be non-free at the whim of the licensor. It would probably allow whole gobs of stuff in. -- Wouldn't a deliberate policy like this mean that Debian would be very open to lawsuits for wilful license violation/copyright infringement (since we'd ignore clauses which aren't intended to be used)? Or perhaps such clauses should be allowed, but only if they require explicit notification from the copyright holder and an opportunity to correct the problem before they activate? That would at least avoid the wilful violation problem. I guess there's a case to be made for that. I don't like it because of the you had rights, but you don't any more problem, but YMMV. -- That said, Matthew Garrett (I think) pointed out the following: (1) The problem with choice-of-venue clauses is that they help with using frivolous lawsuits to make something effectively non-free for poor defendants. (2) However, even without such clauses, it's quite easy to use frivolous lawsuits to do the same amount of damage, thanks to problems with the US and probably other court systems. (It can be argued whether or not this is true, but I'll believe it.) (3) Therefore, choice of venue clauses do no actual harm. So at this point I have been convinced that they're acceptable in a free license. I still disapprove of them, though.
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 08:14:32PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: This is really about freedoms. You don't want to *lose* freedoms (the right to criticize the author, sue third parties, etc.) by getting a free software license. I vehemently disagree. That's interesting. I propose the following license then. Is it free in your opinion? It doesn't technically violate any DFSG clauses, but I think it's self-evidently non-free, because it takes away fundamental freedoms. Anyone (you) may use, copy, modify, and distribute copies (modified or unmodified) of this software, provided that: (1) You must never say or write anything negative about the authors. (2) You agree never to exercise your fair use, fair dealing, or other similar rights regarding this software. (3) You agree not to use this program at all, in any way, without agreeing to this license. (3) You agree never to sue anyone over anything. (4) You agree to allow the authors to search your home and person without notice at any time. (5) You agree to waive your right to trial by jury in all criminal or civil cases brought against you. I believe this violates DFSG#1 and DFSG#3, at least, by placing unreasonable, clearly non-free restrictions on modification and distribution. This doesn't contradict your point at all, of course, which I agree with. Debian is not about Free software, even at the cost of any and all other freedoms. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
I'm going to deal with these one at a time, to avoid really long messages. * The Earth texture was created by NASA using data from the MODIS instrument aboard the Terra satellite.? Further information is available from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/ If it was really created by NASA -- which is part of the US government -- then it is in the public domain, like all creations of the US government. If it was created (1) by a third party (like JPL) under contract with the government, or (2) was modified (to a degree significant for copyright) by a third party who is not part of the government, then it is under copyright and a license is needed from whoever has the copyright. You can probably find out which it is. :-) Anyway, from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/masthead.html, Any and all materials published on the Earth Observatory are freely available for re-publication or re-use, except where copyright is indicated. I suspect that re-use is intended to include modification (which is necessary for many scientific puposes) here. Perhaps if the site managers for Earth Observatory they were asked to clarify that, they would.
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:35:54AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Glenn Maynard writes: On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much more clear than it is now. I think it derives directly from DFSG#1--certainly the spirit, even if the letter is debated. I think adding new guidelines that are subsets of existing ones would set a very bad precedent, since it implies that the DFSG is to be read literally, as a set of rules, instead of a set of guidelines. Do you not believe that would be better than the current situation where we have regular disagreements on some of this? No, I don't. More clearly: I don't think a situation where we're forced to read the DFSG as a set of rules (eg. like the OSD) is an improvement. I think adding guidelines which are already in the DFSG will move us in that direction. That is, adding a guideline must allow derived works on Tuesdays seems to imply that derived works on Tuesdays is not, in fact, covered by DFSG#3--as it clearly is. Likeways, adding must not force distribution of source to anyone other than the recipient implies that this isn't already required by DFSG#1. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
* All other planet maps from David Seal's site: http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/ License for these is at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm, and here it is: --- Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis. By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees: 1. that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use. 2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech. 3. that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied. Special Cases: * Prior written approval must be obtained to use the NASA insignia logo (the blue meatball insignia), the NASA logotype (the red worm logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored. In addition, no image may be used to explicitly or implicitly suggest endorsement by NASA, JPL or Caltech of commercial goods or services. Requests to use NASA logos may be directed to Bert Ulrich, Public Services Division, NASA Headquarters, Code POS, Washington, DC 20546, telephone (202) 358-1713, fax (202) 358-4331, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Prior written approval must be obtained to use the JPL logo (stylized JPL letters in red or other colors). Requests to use the JPL logo may be directed to the Television/Imaging Team Leader, Media Relations Office, Mail Stop 186-120, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA 91109, telephone (818) 354-5011, fax (818) 354-4537. * If an image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person. NASA and JPL generally do not permit likenesses of current employees to appear on commercial products. For more information, consult the NASA and JPL points of contact listed above. * JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Television/Imaging Team Leader, Media Relations Office, Mail Stop 186-120, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA 91109, telephone (818) 354-5011, fax (818) 354-4537. * Some image and video materials on JPL public web sites are owned by organizations other than JPL or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption. Ownership of images and video by parties other than JPL and NASA is noted in the caption material with each image. --- I believe that the Special Cases and restrictions are all fine and DFSG-free. The only issue I see is the basic permission grant. Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. I suspect that used for any purpose is intended to include redistribution, copying, modification, etc. (Because of the any purpose.) It would still be a good idea to get a clarification that that is the intended meaning.
Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
Well, I did the rest in one message since the comments were short. * Mars texture map is from James Hastings-Trew's collection. Is there any information known about the origin of this? That's really necessary before you can legally distribute it. If James Hastings-Trew took the pictures, a license is needed from him; if someone other person or organization did so, we need to know who! * Moon texture map is Courtesy USGS Astrogeology Research Program, http://astrogeology.usgs.gov. (Public Domain) Correct, USGS stuff is really public domain (and DFSG-free). * The snowy landscape textures are from the GPL game tuxracer. Tuxracer 0.61 claims to be copyright Jasmin F. Patry. I hope, therefore, that he got copyright assignments from his art team (credited as Richard Knowles and Mark Riddell). If not, tuxracer has a small problem. :-P Anyway, assuming they're taken from that version, I suppose I would trust upstream. Of course, you have to put the Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001 Jasmin F. Patry notice and the notice saying that it's available under GPL. * The fullsky milky way panorama is created by Axel Mellinger, University of Potsdam, Germany. Further information and more pictures available from http://home.arcor-online.de/axel.mellinger/ * All messiers nebula pictures except m31, Orion and the Pleiades from the Grasslands Observatory : http://www.3towers.com * M31, Orion and the Pleiades pictures come from Herm Perez : http://home.att.net/~hermperez/default.htm Copyright subsists automatically in photographs in most countries (apparently not Canada, I hear). It appears that these photographers haven't granted any permission to redistribute, let alone modify. You need express permission of some sort for anyone to copy, modify, and distribute (modified or unmodified) for these works to go in 'main'. Also, at the very least, you need express permission for Debian's mirror network to distribute them for these works to go in 'non-free'! So you definitely need to contact those photographers. This is the unfortunate effect of the current unconditional copyright laws present in most of the world, under which everything is copyrighted by default. Prior to 1976, the US had conditional copyright laws, under which you had to actually intentionally claim copyright on a publicly distributed work (by putting a notice on it) in order for it to be copyrighted. Don't you wish it still did? :-P
Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
Correction. :-) * M31, Orion and the Pleiades pictures come from Herm Perez : http://home.att.net/~hermperez/default.htm Just found this on the web page: Feel free to use these images, if you use them in a commercial setting please attribute the source. That's the license. :-) If you get clarification that use includes modification and redistribution, then all is well and these can go in 'main'.
Re: Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
No, you stated it fine. A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the logo for another project or website. That would probably cause confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo. We have accepted must-change-name clauses (which are worse) in the past based on the reasoning that causing confusion is not legitimate. The GPL's requirement that you prominently note your changes is for exactly the same reason. The 'no-endorsement' clauses common in BSD-style licenses are for the same reason. I believe that using the Debian logo or name unmodified as the logo or name for another project, without any clarification, in order to cause confusion about endorsement by Debian, or about what is Debian, or about who funds Debian, is not a legitimate purpose or use for a Free logo (or name!), and I hope most people agree with me. The key point is that uses which are *not* likely to cause such confusion must not be prohibited. Incidentally, if Debian vanishes and stops distributing anything or using any logos for a long period (so that no possible confusion can be caused), I think the trademark rights may go away entirely. IANAL, so I'm not sure.
