Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On the other hand, if you take the source code to GCC and format it into the shape of a Coca Cola trademark, then you can't use it for selling soft drinks. Does this mean that GCC is not free? No, no more than the fact that you can't modify the source to GCC to contain the source to Visual C++ (even independently of the fact that GCC is copyleft; I'm referring to the fact that you can't distribute the source of Visual C++). Sure I can. If I happen to independently reimplement Visual C++, then I own the copyright on that. Microsoft does not. This does not apply, of course, to the one kind of requirement that DFSG4 allows: requiring that derived works carry a different name. But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
symlinks package non-free?
Hello, The source of the symlinks package consists of a makefile, a manual page, a C file, and an lsm file. None of the three former contains a header with copyright and/or license information. The latter contains the following lines: CopyPolicy1 =(c) Mark Lord, freely distributable CopyPolicy2 = Even if the lack of license information in the source code is not considered a problem, there is no permission to modify the code, so IMHO the program is non-free. What should I do now? Report a bug against symlinks? Thanks, Martin -- ,--. ,= ,-_-. =. / ,- )Martin Dickopp, Dresden, Germany((_/)o o(\_)) \ `-'http://www.zero-based.org/`-'(. .)`-' `-. \_/
libdvdcss legal status [was: Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub]
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:06:34 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: See also libdvdcss, a piece of software that is Free Software in all jurisdictions except the United States, in which its use is restricted by ridiculous laws. If you are referring to DMCA, I'm afraid that EUCD is very much similar in spirit and effect. Hence libdvdcss will be considered illegal in the European Union, as well. :-( Correct me, if I'm wrong, and I would really like to be wrong here... -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune Francesco |Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes? | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape. pgpcuKgkq0pQO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:14:08 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Trademark problems only arise when the image is used in a particular way. I would think that Debian is not obliged to and cannot give permission for all possible uses of Debian software. We most certainly can and should. We can't give permission for people to use Apache to implement one-click shopping. That's a far greater and far more serious restriction, and one more direcly related to software, than the trademark restriction on the use of the Debian logo, and yet we don't argue that Apache is non-free because of it. That's because it's not Apache's license that fails to permit this use (or attempt to restric this use): it's the existence of an unrelated software patent. Apache Software Foundation gives this permission, it's the one-click shopping patent holder that does not! -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune Francesco |Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes? | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape. pgp1f8EaWJArW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MTL license
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:20:09 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: And if you're going to make a new one, consult debian-legal, cause we're sufficiently paranoid. ;-) Indeed. And, as you may already know, Paranoy is a virtue. -- Anonymous :-) -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune Francesco |Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes? | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape. pgpQGKulgytgY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On the other hand, if you take the source code to GCC and format it into the shape of a Coca Cola trademark, then you can't use it for selling soft drinks. Does this mean that GCC is not free? No, no more than the fact that you can't modify the source to GCC to contain the source to Visual C++ (even independently of the fact that GCC is copyleft; I'm referring to the fact that you can't distribute the source of Visual C++). Sure I can. If I happen to independently reimplement Visual C++, then I own the copyright on that. Microsoft does not. Granted, though you'd have a heck of a time proving it if the code was identical. However, I was referring to modifying GCC to include the source, meaning copying that source from VC++. This does not apply, of course, to the one kind of requirement that DFSG4 allows: requiring that derived works carry a different name. But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless. That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that identifies a project. GCC, grub, Linux, and Apache are all names. A logo is not a name. A name does not, of course, need to be in Roman characters (TeX is not, though it is commonly romanized), nor pronounceable (many projects choose names with dubious pronounceability). However, a logo is in no way equivalent to a project name, and I do not believe a requirement such as You must use a different logo for modified versions. passes the DFSG, nor should it. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: symlinks package non-free?
On 2004-09-24 17:28:29 +0100 Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What should I do now? Report a bug against symlinks? Probably, yes, but I suggest starting licence needs clarification bug rather than this is non-free you evil people as it's just not clear what freely distributable means. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Trademark problems only arise when the image is used in a particular way. I would think that Debian is not obliged to and cannot give permission for all possible uses of Debian software. We most certainly can and should. We can't give permission for people to use Apache to implement one-click shopping. That's a far greater and far more serious restriction, and one more direcly related to software, than the trademark restriction on the use of the Debian logo, and yet we don't argue that Apache is non-free because of it.
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please note that I did not say that a work is non-free if it can be transformed to contain a trademarked item, any more than a work is non-free if it can be transformed to contain a copyrighted work to which we don't have a Free license, such as the source code to Microsoft(TM) Windows(TM). :) This doesn't really make sense. The only way you can transform a work to contain a different copyrighted work is by including parts of the other copyrighted work, which means you're transforming that other work, not just the first work. The comparison between trademarks and patents makes some sense; this comparison with copyright doesn't. I am only concerned with whether a given work, and all derived works of that work, have permission to use the trademark. Which trademark? Trademarkedness isn't a property of the work; trademarks exist independently of the work. I have no problem with Debian holding and licensing rights under both trademarks and copyrights that apply to Debian's works. The whole point of a trademark restriction is that it doesn't just apply to one's own works. Therefore, if we want to ship the logo in main, we need to grant a DFSG-Free license to the logo itself and to derived works of the logo. Why the if clause? Debian owning a trademark is a restriction on all works whether or not they include a representation of the trademark and whether or not Debian ships them, so surely what you are really saying is that Debian should not restrict the world's freedom by owning a trademark, which seems to me like a reasonable, if extreme, point of view.
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The trademark rights are entirely separate, and there's no reason for Debian to license them in any way other than Free for use if there's no confusion with Debian, either because they refer to Debian or because they're in a domain where Debian does no business. If you believe that to be the case, then I assume you would argue that we should not include any of the Debian logos within the Debian main distribution. That would be unfortunate. Or are you arguing that such a restriction would be DFSG-free? It seems to blatantly fail DFSG6. It doesn't fail DFSG 6 because it is explicitly protected by DFSG 4: the logo is a name. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless. On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that identifies a project. GCC, grub, Linux, and Apache are all names. A logo is not a name. You're changing the subject from what Brian was talking about: the set of trademarks has only a small area of overlap with the set of logos. Sure, there are logos which don't identify anything, but those logos aren't trademarks. Anyways, could you describe a serious scenario that illustrates this danger to software freedom that you're so concerned about? [I saw the scenario where you proposed that we shouldn't discriminate against fraud, but the philosophy behind your argument would have us declare the GPL non-free -- so that doesn't seem like a serious issue.] Thanks, -- Raul
