Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where these decisions are taken. Who did that? I must have missed a few posts. FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful resource, should be consulted, especially in the situations described in policy, but the decision-making should be carried out like other package decisions, including not being spiteful when bugs are reported. [...] To maintain a package you need a clear technical head, a certain minimum time commitment, and the results (good or bad) are clearly visible. Whereas anyone can blow off hot air on a mailing list. Blowing off hot air on a list is always unhelpful. Parsing a licence needs a clear head, a certain minimum time, but the results are not often clearly visible. That's probably why it sucks, frustrates the crap out of so many people and the good work that is done is underappreciated. Regards, -- 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: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which is used by many other people as well, and they all exhibit the same flaw; so even if we allowed the bug to slip in, it's not really our fault. Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need to indemnify. That's what the FAQ says; and whether or not it has legal value, it *does* explain the interpretation Sun gives to its license. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need to indemnify. That's what the FAQ says; and whether or not it has legal value, it *does* explain the interpretation Sun gives to its license. Changes to debian are made under debian's control (in theory). The reason I raised the indemnity in particular is that the FAQ does not contradict this concern, so all the should we ignore the FAQ debate didn't affect it. Quoth the FAQ: | Simply put, Sun requires indemnification to limit its exposure for | issues that are not Sun's fault. If your conduct or your OS causes ^ | a problem that results in a third-party claim, then Sun expects you ^^^ | to take responsibility for it. Note that you are not indemnifying ^ | Sun against claims that are a result of something in Sun's code. You | also are not indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes that a | downstream distributor has made to your OS. You *are* indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes to your OS whose inclusion you control. It's only downstream changes that are excluded, not upstream. (AIUI, Gentoo can avoid this neatly, with its users' install commands rebuilding the OS.) Do you agree, or what have I missed? Regards, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Jun 08, 2006 at 12:19, MJ Ray praised the llamas by saying: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need to indemnify. That's what the FAQ says; and whether or not it has legal value, it *does* explain the interpretation Sun gives to its license. Changes to debian are made under debian's control (in theory). The reason I raised the indemnity in particular is that the FAQ does not contradict this concern, so all the should we ignore the FAQ debate didn't affect it. Quoth the FAQ: | Simply put, Sun requires indemnification to limit its exposure for | issues that are not Sun's fault. If your conduct or your OS causes ^ | a problem that results in a third-party claim, then Sun expects you ^^^ | to take responsibility for it. Note that you are not indemnifying ^ | Sun against claims that are a result of something in Sun's code. You | also are not indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes that a | downstream distributor has made to your OS. You *are* indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes to your OS whose inclusion you control. It's only downstream changes that are excluded, not upstream. (AIUI, Gentoo can avoid this neatly, with its users' install commands rebuilding the OS.) Out of interest, if[0] that is saying that we agree that anything isn't Sun's fault isn't Sun's fault (which is fair enough) then that doesn't mention anything about any warranty that we might offer. For the large majority of the software we ship, we disclaim any warranty what so ever. Can we not just disclaim all warranty on Sun's java like we do with the rest of our software, or is there something in the license that forces us to give a warranty? [0] I'm going by MJ's comments. I haven't had chance to check the actual license, so take this as a curious question from someone interested to know the answer. Do you agree, or what have I missed? Regards, -- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
Scripsit Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is the IBM Common Public Licence version 1.0 (below) considered DFSG-free? We have software under this licence in main already, notably postfix and graphviz. The license has been discussed explicitly on debian-legal at least once [1] and no flaws big enough to cause it to be considered non-free were discovered. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00297.html For my attempt to summarize the 2005 discussion, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00847.html The patent self-destruct feature of the license is quite restrained and is within what we generally consider fair self-defense. -- Henning Makholm... it cannot be told in his own words because after September 11 he forgot about keeping his diary for a long time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who can make binding legal agreements
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:47:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: So what am I trying to do? Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to serious legal risks. Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI board yourself? (Subsequent to the message I was replying to, John's done this) Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 12:18 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal): I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Actually, I think they should not participate, in general. [snip] Part of the problem here is that the selection process for DD's has become discredited, because (a) many good and useful people making significant technical contributions are still stuck outside the fence and also (b) many less good and less useful people are on the inside making a mess. I don't have an easy answer to this but it's something we should all be thinking about. And maybe *you* should think about it before saying non-DD contributions are not welcome. Believe me, if they stopped participating tomorrow, large key parts of the development would be completely stuck, and that includes advice on licenses. But dismantling the or undermining the tie between political decisionmaking in Debian to formal membership is not the answer. I don't see much difference between contributing to debian-legal and contributing to packaging. The contributors to the mailing list are not the ones making the decision. The ones making the decision are the ftp-masters and the release managers, using *advice* from the list. Do you need to be a DD to spot a problem with a license? No. Fortunately, most DDs can, unlike you, accept that this is a real problem even if the person spotting it is not a Chosen One. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Open CASCADE Technology Public License
Le jeudi 08 juin 2006 à 22:37 +0200, Aurelien Jarno a écrit : Public license In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like with certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE Technology within commercial environments and you are obliged to acknowledge its use. You are also obliged to send your modifications of the original source code (if you have made any) to the Initial Developer (i.e. Open CASCADE S.A.S.). Complete text of the license is given below. The summary says the modifications should be sent to the Initial Developer (which isn't free), however nothing in the license itself says that. I think a statement acknowledging that this summary isn't binding would be a good thing to obtain. * If you distribute or sublicense the Software (as modified by You or on Your behalf as the case may be), You cause such Software to be licensed as a whole, at no charge, to all third parties, under the terms and conditions of the License, making in particular available to all third parties the source code of the Software; No right to sell. I think this isn't good. 7. Additional terms You may choose to offer, on a non-exclusive basis, and to charge a fee for any warranty, support, maintenance, liability obligations or other rights consistent with the scope of this License with respect to the Software (the Additional Terms) to the recipients of the Software. However, You may do so only on Your own behalf and on Your sole and exclusive responsibility. You must obtain the recipient's agreement that any such Additional Terms are offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold the Initial Developer and any Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by or claims asserted against the Initial Developer or any Contributors with respect to any such Additional Terms. The indemnification clause looks scary. However it is only here to retaliate against false claims, so this is reasonable. I don't know about corner cases, though. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Open CASCADE Technology Public License
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] * If you distribute or sublicense the Software (as modified by You or on Your behalf as the case may be), You cause such Software to be licensed as a whole, at no charge, to all third parties, under the terms and conditions of the License, making in particular available to all third parties the source code of the Software; No right to sell. I think this isn't good. Huh? What the quote says is just that the redistributed software must be _licensed_ at no charge, which is just your run-of-the-mill copyleft construction. -- Henning Makholm No one seems to know what distinguishes a bell from a whistle. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open CASCADE Technology Public License
Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 08 juin 2006 à 22:37 +0200, Aurelien Jarno a écrit : Public license In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like with certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE Technology within commercial environments and you are obliged to acknowledge its use. You are also obliged to send your modifications of the original source code (if you have made any) to the Initial Developer (i.e. Open CASCADE S.A.S.). Complete text of the license is given below. The summary says the modifications should be sent to the Initial Developer (which isn't free), however nothing in the license itself says that. I think a statement acknowledging that this summary isn't binding would be a good thing to obtain. Agreed. * If you distribute or sublicense the Software (as modified by You or on Your behalf as the case may be), You cause such Software to be licensed as a whole, at no charge, to all third parties, under the terms and conditions of the License, making in particular available to all third parties the source code of the Software; No right to sell. I think this isn't good. GPL v2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. :) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
