Re: BitTorrent 4.0.1 - BitTorrent Open Source License
Please post license texts to -legal, not just URLs. This makes them easier to comment on and preserves the relevant information in our list archive. I grabbed the following from http://www.bittorrent.com/license/ on April 2, 2005 @ 0455 EST. BitTorrent Open Source License Version 1.0 This BitTorrent Open Source License (the License) applies to the BitTorrent client and related software products as well as any updates or maintenance releases of that software (BitTorrent Products) that are distributed by BitTorrent, Inc. (Licensor). Any BitTorrent Product licensed pursuant to this License is a Licensed Product. Licensed Product, in its entirety, is protected by U.S. copyright law. This License identifies the terms under which you may use, copy, distribute or modify Licensed Product. Preamble This Preamble is intended to describe, in plain English, the nature and scope of this License. However, this Preamble is not a part of this license. The legal effect of this License is dependent only upon the terms of the License and not this Preamble. This License complies with the Open Source Definition and is derived from the Jabber Open Source License 1.0 (the JOSL), which has been approved by Open Source Initiative. Sections 4(c) and 4(f)(iii) from the JOSL have been dropped. This License provides that: 1. You may use, sell or give away the Licensed Product, alone or as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. No royalty or other fee is required. 2. Both Source Code and executable versions of the Licensed Product, including Modifications made by previous Contributors, are available for your use. (The terms Licensed Product, Modifications, Contributors and Source Code are defined in the License.) 3. You are allowed to make Modifications to the Licensed Product, and you can create Derivative Works from it. (The term Derivative Works is defined in the License.) 4. By accepting the Licensed Product under the provisions of this License, you agree that any Modifications you make to the Licensed Product and then distribute are governed by the provisions of this License. In particular, you must make the Source Code of your Modifications available to others. 5. You may use the Licensed Product for any purpose, but the Licensor is not providing you any warranty whatsoever, nor is the Licensor accepting any liability in the event that the Licensed Product doesn't work properly or causes you any injury or damages. 6. If you sublicense the Licensed Product or Derivative Works, you may charge fees for warranty or support, or for accepting indemnity or liability obligations to your customers. You cannot charge for the Source Code. 7. If you assert any patent claims against the Licensor relating to the Licensed Product, or if you breach any terms of the License, your rights to the Licensed Product under this License automatically terminate. You may use this License to distribute your own Derivative Works, in which case the provisions of this License will apply to your Derivative Works just as they do to the original Licensed Product. Alternatively, you may distribute your Derivative Works under any other OSI-approved Open Source license, or under a proprietary license of your choice. If you use any license other than this License, however, you must continue to fulfill the requirements of this License (including the provisions relating to publishing the Source Code) for those portions of your Derivative Works that consist of the Licensed Product, including the files containing Modifications. New versions of this License may be published from time to time. You may choose to continue to use the license terms in this version of the License or those from the new version. However, only the Licensor has the right to change the License terms as they apply to the Licensed Product. This License relies on precise definitions for certain terms. Those terms are defined when they are first used, and the definitions are repeated for your convenience in a Glossary at the end of the License. License Terms 1. Grant of License From Licensor. Licensor hereby grants you a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims, to do the following: a. Use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute any Modifications created by such Contributor or portions thereof, in both Source Code or as an executable program, either on an unmodified basis or as part of Derivative Works. b. Under claims of patents now or hereafter owned or controlled by Contributor, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or otherwise dispose of Modifications or portions thereof, but solely to the extent that any such claim is necessary to enable you to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or otherwise dispose of
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: No we don't. There's huge chunks of X under licenses like that without us having obtained any clarification. I doubt the accuracy of that, but regardless, if there are, it's just because we haven't got around to them yet. http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=safe=offc2coff=1q=+site%3Apackages.debian.org+%22permission+to+use%2C+copy%2C+modify+and+distribute%22btnG=Search - that ought to keep you going for a while. We assume that they're free unless the copyright holder claims otherwise. You might like that to be changed, but what you're claiming is simply untrue - current practice is not to read licenses in the worst possible light. By your logic, current practice is not to fix RC bugs, because there exist RC bugs which have not been fixed. If the majority of developers were not fixing RC bugs, then common practice would be that we didn't fix RC bugs. But they do. Most people believe that a license with some ambiguity is acceptable if there's no indication that the copyright holder interprets it oddly. You're just wrong here. The fact that a license /can/ be interpreted in a way that would result in it being non-free does not mean that all material under that license should be considered non-free. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Francesco Poli wrote: Hi Thomas! ciao Franceso I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right? yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page. Should I not consider that faq? [...] The main point you seem to miss is that DFSG are indeed directed to software, but with the term software in its widest meaning. In other words, if, by software you mean programs only, then, no, DFSG are not directed to software only, but to both programs *and* other (non-program) works. [...] I hope to have clarified a little... we are going in this direction ;-) My understanding of software is not only programs. But, for my (and others) point of view software is a genus, which includes programs and non programs information as two *different* species. I understand perfectly that this is not the opinion of this list, and I am not here to try to convince you of the opposite. What I see with expectation (as some of you, as far as I understand it correctly) is to create a kind of compatibility between the the BY and BY-SA and the dfsg. This shouldn't be so hard, because, IMHO, your proposal to modify ccpl regards secondary aspects. Let me clarify: secondary in the meaning of not the most important liberties are regarded. More, I already pointed out the the two point regarding trademark license and DRM clause may improve the ccpl. [...] Well, as a matter of fact, authors always have absolute freedom to choose the license they like for their own works. Let me be more clear: I write a text titled legal aspects of copyleft. I want to release it under the terms of BY-SA, 'cause this license is up to me. I want that my text be distributed as wide as possible, and of curse into a Debian package regarding documentation (let's suppose). This would not be possible because of incompatibility of license (*not of the main rights*). Am I (the author) free in deciding the license? Hope to be more clear on this issue that I want to point out. I think it's quite important, and hope it will make any sense for you, too. ;-) Users, on the other hand, can never choose which license they receive a given work under... I agree. I think that the point is giving freedom to people that are *not* copyright holders for the work, since the copyright holder already has absolute power over his/her own work. understand and agree. [...] Keep in mind that, in these arguments, when I say software I'm not speaking of programs only: software is programs, documentation, images, sounds, animations, literature, ... Ok, but as others think different (see my opinion on this point above), do you mind would it be possible to respect the pluralism in the concept of freedom and of what exactly software is? I'm going to develop this point. You know that CC officially recommends gpl for programs, while offers a set of licenses for other works. This means that cc is endorsing a different view. However, is not prohibited use ccpl for programs. Shouldn't we recognize a kind of pluralism in the concept of what exactly are programs and software and how should they be treated, as far as these different view reflect in licenses that are compatible with secondary modifications? I think this last point determine if we should keep developing this discussion or not. My opinion is, of curse, yes. I repeat: This is the reason because I hope that this project will go further. But, as I said, it's just my personal view. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BitTorrent 4.0.1 - BitTorrent Open Source License
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 04:55:58 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Please post license texts to -legal, not just URLs. This makes them easier to comment on and preserves the relevant information in our list archive. I grabbed the following from http://www.bittorrent.com/license/ on April 2, 2005 @ 0455 EST. BitTorrent Open Source License Version 1.0 [...] A wdiff shows that this is exactly the same license we analyzed last month: see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00181.html and the discussion that followed. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpzTVXiyrgcv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right? yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page. Should I not consider that faq? You should consider it as the opinion of a debian-legal contributor, and in no way representative of the official position of Debian. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 08:22:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right? yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page. Should I not consider that faq? You should consider it as the opinion of a debian-legal contributor, and in no way representative of the official position of Debian. You should note, Thomas, that Marco is an established troll who takes every opportunity he can find to attack d-legal in order to advance his goal of low standards of freedom in Debian, being among that group of people who apparently despise the fact that the Social Contract applies to everything, even *his* pet non-free software. Don't be too surprised if few people waste time arguing with him anymore. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right? yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page. Should I not consider that faq? You should consider it as the opinion of a debian-legal contributor, and in no way representative of the official position of Debian. You understate it again. It includes the opinions of at least twelve contributors, although only one of them has definitely agreed to include them all. It is the most popularly cited FAQ about the DFSG. That is easy to see. Marco d'Itri doesn't like it and chip-chip-chips away at it by pointing out it's not been pushed through a GR. IIRC, Marco d'Itri has criticised policy statement GRs. On the other, things are attacked for not having been passed by GR. What a contradiction! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Read the FAQ but realise that not everyone agrees fully and some criticise destructively rather than constructively. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
I cover the FAQ question in reply to Marco d'Itri. Other questions: Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Well, as a matter of fact, authors always have absolute freedom to choose the license they like for their own works. [...example...] Am I (the author) free in deciding the license? [...] Yes. Are we (a packager and distributor) free in not working with it if we decide it does not follow our published guidelines? Keep in mind that, in these arguments, when I say software I'm not speaking of programs only: software is programs, documentation, images, sounds, animations, literature, ... Ok, but as others think different (see my opinion on this point above), do you mind would it be possible to respect the pluralism in the concept of freedom and of what exactly software is? [...] I am confused by this. I am not telling you what you must mean by software. I will tell you what I think debian means by software. I will try to persuade other constituents of debian that my view should be accepted. If by respect the pluralism you mean generally accept non-free software into debian on the grounds that it isn't software to which the DFSG applies, then I probably never will condone that. It's just too extreme for me: mutable files holding bitstreams yet somehow the files aren't software? Very rare. Do you claim that Creative Commons draws some distinction between software and programs? I think that would be another case of CC failing to say what they believe, weakening that project, cutting up the commons between different beliefs. Really, they should be called the Creative Commonses project. See news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Shouldn't we recognize a kind of pluralism in the concept of what exactly are programs and software and how should they be treated, as far as these different view reflect in licenses that are compatible with secondary modifications? No. I believe the same freedoms which I have been persuaded to give over my programs are valuable for all software. We should treat all software equally. I also consider that to be the view of debian, expressed through the social contract and DFSG. To change those would require a strong General Resolution: I have a vote and today would argue for the current situation, based on solid pragmatic reasons. Compromise opportunity: I would want a pretty unambiguous description of when to use anything weaker than the DFSG. At least, it should avoid letting any programs which don't follow DFSG into main. No-one has posted a good definition of documentation which doesn't include some programs, for example. I think that inability is because it's not possible, but I might be proved wrong. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 12:43:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Compromise opportunity: I would want a pretty unambiguous description of when to use anything weaker than the DFSG. At least, it should avoid letting any programs which don't follow DFSG into main. No-one has posted a good definition of documentation which doesn't include some programs, for example. ... and nobody has posted solid rationale explaining why Debian *should* permit restrictions on documentation that it does not permit for programs, even if such a boundary can be unambiguously drawn. (The FSF's documentation has such restrictions, so we should allow them is not solid rationale; it's merely an agenda.) I think that inability is because it's not possible, but I might be proved wrong. The fact that some software is both program and documentation (eg. PostScript) seems to be simple proof that you're right. :) You can't draw a strict boundary between overlapping sets. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close. Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:34:15PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: According to http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5293 there are already at least 10 million works published under a CC license. I'm really suspicious of their numbers. According to http://people.debian.org/~jgb/debian-counting/ there are at least 55 million works published under a DFSG-free license in potato, for a sufficiently abtrust definition of work. As best I can make out, their guesstimate is based on the number of web pages linking to their site (because obviously everybody who links to the site releases precisely one work under their license). I don't know where they got their numbers though, because google comes up with about 20k references. So in summary, I think that 10 million is pure fiction. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lirc license
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:25:34AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:41:37AM +, Benjamin A'Lee wrote: I was under the impression that the output of a program wasn't covered by the licence of the program (or any licence dictated by the author of the program). Wouldn't that be similar to the output of GCC being automatically covered by the GPL, or am I misunderstanding something (I wouldn't be surprised if I was). The output of a program may be covered by the license of the program. It's one of those fuzzy cases that is difficult to predict. To avoid problems, the license of gcc explicitly disclaims this, granting you an unlimited license to do anything with its output. In the case of gcc, it wasn't anything fuzzy. IIRC, libgcc is linked statically into the executable to provide startup code etc. and it used to be GPL. libgcc (and similar parts of gcc) have license additions to prevent every executable from being neccessarily GPL licensed. In short it's not the output of gcc, but the automatically linked libgcc that created license problems. gcc itself carries a similar exemption, to be sure. The fact that other odd things happen in the gcc codebase isn't particularly relevant. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close. Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands. Evading Matthew's counterarguments doesn't convince anyone but yourself. You're claiming, as far as I can tell, that any license that can be twisted in a non-free way is categorically non-free. Since that's possible with just about every license, that claim is obviously false. Unless the BSD license is non-free, since one might claim that redistribution and use means both, not either, so you must redistribute the work to be allowed to use it; the MIT license is non-free, claiming that supporting documentation applies to documentation for the work that's created and distributed independently by a third party; that GPL#6 impose further restrictions forbids me from writing code in an obscure, hard-to-read coding style (eg. GNU's), since the ability to modify a work is reduced as a result. None of these licenses mean any of these things, but the words can be twisted and people could claim it. That doesn't make the licenses non-free, it doesn't mean the licenses need to be changed (it won't help), and it doesn't necessarily mean that obviously bogus interpretations would stand in court-- that's one of the big reasons we strongly recommend using well-established licenses (such as the above three). -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close. Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands. Evading Matthew's counterarguments doesn't convince anyone but yourself. He didn't *make* any counterarguments. His mail approximated I'm right, you're wrong, nyah nyah nyah. There's no practical response to that. You're claiming, as far as I can tell, that any license that can be twisted in a non-free way is categorically non-free. No. http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050324.html -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:00:46AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: You're claiming, as far as I can tell, that any license that can be twisted in a non-free way is categorically non-free. No. http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050324.html You can't just say no. When you find people don't understand your position, either explain your position more clearly, or stop wasting our time. Anyhow, you've made it blindingly clear that you have nothing of real substance to offer to this list; anything you might have to offer is deafened by your continual snide derision, your complete (and obviously entirely deliberate) inability to discuss anything at all civilly. Even the subject of a certain Drinking Game a while back has a much better track record than you lately. *plonk* -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
