Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Triplett wrote: Damyan Ivanov wrote: === The problematic? clause === Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files covered by this license (the “Software”) to use the Software as part of another work; to modify it for that purpose; to publish or distribute it, modified or not, for that same purpose; to permit persons to whom the other work using the Software is furnished to do so; subject to the following conditions: the above copyright notice and this complete and unmodified permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software; You will not misrepresent modified versions of the Software as being the original. === Francesco Poli wrote: What if I want to modify the library itself and distribute the result by itself? This is not permitted, AFAIU. Why have I to be annoyed by this wrap it in some silly container work requirement? Better to adopt the actual Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt), IMHO. I see your point and I agree. But the author deliberately modified Expat license to include the above terms. So the questions is: Is this DFSG-free or not? Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. That particular point, that you only plan to use it with one particular piece of software, has no bearing on DFSG-freeness. I guess my explaination was not clear enough. I follow this re-licensing effort for so long that I tend to omit the details. Sorry. IBPP is released only as source (i.e. a set of C++ classes, no .so, no library). FlameRobin incorporates this released source in its source tree. So we are talking about packaging FlameRobin, which source contains some files licensed under the above terms. The rest of FlameRobin is (soon to be) licensed under unmodified Expat license. And I don't plan to package IBPP in separate package, but only flamerobin.deb (with part of the .orig.tar.gz using tha above license) I am not sure if this makes a difference... This license itself seems highly suboptimal, but it *may* follow the letter of the DFSG: 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. as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources does indeed permit pieces of software which do not permit solo distribution, since you can always bundle them with a hello world program to make them distributable. (This also makes such licensing relatively worthless.) One question however: does the author intend use the Software as part of another work to imply that the work must incorporate or derive from the Software, or simply that the Software must occur as part of a larger work of some kind, including potentially an aggregate with unrelated programs, such as the Debian distribution? The latter follows the letter of the DFSG; the former places a stronger requirement that I don't believe the DFSG permits. I beleive that something like FlameRobin is sought. (i.e. the former). And this is exactly the context of using the IBPP - as an integral part of another software. I beleive this is not a problem, since the FlameRobin package would satisfy both licensing (original Expath and this modified thingy - the IBPP license) and the Social contract. I mention SC, because of this text: We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines.. If we take components to be equal to packages then I beleive[1] the FlameRobin package fits in SC and DFSG. Friendly, dam - -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELkEpHqjlqpcl9jsRAu/UAJ40sAbELq+CVpOrIqBR5+9wBMazpACcD0Ai bdpG1bJQh4yh+GO64G/l8mI= =NVSq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Francesco Poli wrote: On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:48:53 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote: Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. I see, but imagine which permissions someone would get, if he/she wanted to extract IBPP from FlameRobin's source... (See also my answer to Josh Triplett) The intention of the author is not to permit the sole usage. IBPP may be used only as part of another software. And this exactly is my intent - - packaging FlameRobin, which contains IBPP. Friendly, dam - -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELkJvHqjlqpcl9jsRAgZOAJ44Q1NkY6uyp2fj+oHK285vXI/+ugCeLmkm awj8EfLx03lMzDIGFzRNAvE= =TTh6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Format of the copyright file
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 05:31:11PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: Hi, I'm struggling with the policy requirement that the copyright and licensing information must be in one file debian/copyright, including the complete license text except for the common licenses. Note that debian/copyright is made available through means other than the package itself, eg the Package Tracking System. That's a good point. The file could probably be useful if it was: - clearly divided up by visual separators - the individual sections numbered sequentially - a table of contents at the start We already have some of this, the visual separators could be more visible... Incidentally, is the Artistic License the same as the one in /usr/share/common-licenses? No, it's a different version. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Mozilla relicensing complete
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 09:37:34 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL: ... which technically doesn't apply to the source code we have in the debian archive. We will get the relicensed work as soon as they release firefox 1.5.0.2, xulrunner 1.8.0.2, and thunderbird 1.5.0.2. Mozilla is dead so it will remain as it is. I think that this is good news anyway. Thanks to Gervase Markham for dealing with this (big) issue! P.S.: I'm not respecting the Mail-Followup-To: field, because Josh didn't asked to be Cc:ed on replies, see the Debian mailing list code of conduct. Moreover Josh is a well known debian-legal contributor: I'm pretty sure he's still a subscriber... -- :-( 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 pgphfUM5DYBDN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mozilla relicensing complete
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 12:39:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 09:37:34 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL: ... which technically doesn't apply to the source code we have in the debian archive. We will get the relicensed work as soon as they release firefox 1.5.0.2, xulrunner 1.8.0.2, and thunderbird 1.5.0.2. Mozilla is dead so it will remain as it is. I think that this is good news anyway. Thanks to Gervase Markham for dealing with this (big) issue! I'm not denying the colossal work it represented (he began in 2001 !), I'm just making it clear that until we upload new relicensed versions, it doesn't change anything for Debian. Especially for the mozilla-browser package. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla relicensing complete
Francesco Poli wrote: I think that this is good news anyway. Thanks to Gervase Markham for dealing with this (big) issue! You are welcome :-) Perhaps now I can get back to hacking :-) Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla relicensing complete
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html And there was much rejoicing. Kudos to Gervase Markham. -- Henning Makholm We will discuss your youth another time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPL license
On 4/1/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Snapshot.debian.net does not help because Debian made legally responsible for ensuring the code remains available by the MPL, and as we know all to well snapshot.d.n is not invincible.] True enough. However, once snapshot.debian.net has moved to Debian's promised multi-server, multi-terabyte storage cluster with 2Gbits uplink [1, 2] it might be considered sufficiently robust... [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/12/msg00112.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/03/msg00245.html -- Andrew Saunders
