DFSG-free license?
I'm working on packaging a some software that uses this license. Is this an acceptable license from a debian perspective? Thanks, -Brian COPYRIGHT AND LICENCE Copyright (c) 2005-2006 University of Illinois Board of Trustees All rights reserved. Developed by: Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the ``Software''), to deal with the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the names of Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without specific prior written permission. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'', WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE. -- Brian Elliott Finley Mobile: 630.631.6621 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. We accept them, but grudgingly. 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. -- Henning Makholm We're trying to get it into the parts per billion range, but no luck still. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. LICENSEE AGREES THAT LICENSE VIOLATION MAY RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION would hardly be controversial. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-free license?
Brian Elliott Finley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm working on packaging a some software that uses this license. Is this an acceptable license from a debian perspective? Looks like 3-clause BSD, which is absolutely fine. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Just a heads-up. http://gplv3.fsf.org/ There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the GPL v.3. (They all look like improvements to me, but there's a lot to digest.) And there's a new draft of the LGPL. (I haven't looked carefully at it.) You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) -- but if there are any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please bring them up here as well so we can try to hash out whether they really are. Note that the fact that that DFSG 10 may make GPLv3 free regardless of other violations, because GPL is used without version information. On to the other areas. I will be pointing out any potential problems I notice, even if i do not belive them to actually be a problem. The System Libraries of an executable work include every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. If I understand this, the system library exception will only applyto libraries required to use that part of the system (windows manager ,kernel, compiler, etc.) or can apply to libraries ditributed with those components that implements a highly used or standard API if an implentation of this API exists with viewable source. (This would allow linking to without distibuting something like a Micosoft gettext library, if that library was included with the compiler.) I point this out, not because of freeness issues, (although there might be some), but only because the orignal took a fair ammount of effort to understand. The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has the key and can read and copy it, as in privacy applications where users generate their own keys. However, the fact that a key is generated based on the object code of the work or is present in hardware that limits its use does not alter the requirement to include it in the Corresponding Source. This is the Tivo clause. I'm not sure if there is any freeness issues to it, but it is contoversial. This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions, if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using, selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in compliance with this License. This indicates that the GPL now does cover running the work, but only in this one case does it dissallow use. It also only covers use of a modified version. This could be possible under the not a contract theory, as copyright law does not private modifications without permission. 3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License. This is a another DRM related clause. This should be ok, as it only dissallows distribution of the source or object code in a way that would prevent the users from excersizing their rights. This does not prevent distributing on some form of media with manditory DRM, as long as a form without DRM is distributed alongside it, as both would be covered under the same act of conveying, and the second version allows the users the rights they need. c) If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate copyright notice, and tells the user that there is no warranty for the program (or that you provide a warranty), that users may convey the modified work
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? -- Henning MakholmThere is a danger that curious users may occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
On 7/28/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? I'm not sure if the license can be changed, but would it be acceptable to merely *state* the fact, rather than requiring the user to agree to it? Something like: THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT; FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. In order for a person to use software, they must agree to the licensing terms. In this case, they don't have to agree that US export laws may impose a burden upon them, they just are agreeing that the licensor has warned them about the export laws. -- Robinson Tryon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please move DAVDSI thread to public lists
Le vendredi 28 juillet 2006 à 23:36 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit : Le ven 28 juillet 2006 23:26, Josselin Mouette a écrit : Le vendredi 28 juillet 2006 à 22:40 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit : It would be interesting to start a formal enquiry if this applies to Bittorrent. it is without any doubt. as is any p2p software, ftp (that is often used to distribute dvd rips e.g.), ... I'm not sure this can apply to bittorrent, as it is also, generally speaking, the most efficient way to distribute large files. it's also how I get my weekly fix (yeah, I also happen to be a serie-addict). mininova.org, torrentspy.com, ... do not really list a lot of licit content, do they ? The point is, it was not *designed* to share copyrighted content. Just like FTP or IRC. I'm not sure, but this is how I understand the law as written. -- .''`. 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: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the This is bad for services where use of a modified client is disallowed or detrimental to other users, e.g. let's say there is a GPL3 game that uses a centralised server to play against other players. Under this section any modified clients have the keys needed to connect to the server in a way that is indistinguishable, so I could modify it and add cheat codes and other controversial things and under this section they would not be able to distinguish me and ban me. On 7/29/06, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Just a heads-up. http://gplv3.fsf.org/ There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the GPL v.3. (They all look like improvements to me, but there's a lot to digest.) And there's a new draft of the LGPL. (I haven't looked carefully at it.) You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) -- but if there are any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please bring them up here as well so we can try to hash out whether they really are. Note that the fact that that DFSG 10 may make GPLv3 free regardless of other violations, because GPL is used without version information. On to the other areas. I will be pointing out any potential problems I notice, even if i do not belive them to actually be a problem. The System Libraries of an executable work include every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. If I understand this, the system library exception will only applyto libraries required to use that part of the system (windows manager ,kernel, compiler, etc.) or can apply to libraries ditributed with those components that implements a highly used or standard API if an implentation of this API exists with viewable source. (This would allow linking to without distibuting something like a Micosoft gettext library, if that library was included with the compiler.) I point this out, not because of freeness issues, (although there might be some), but only because the orignal took a fair ammount of effort to understand. The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has the key and can read and copy it, as in privacy applications where users generate their own keys. However, the fact that a key is generated based on the object code of the work or is present in hardware that limits its use does not alter the requirement to include it in the Corresponding Source. This is the Tivo clause. I'm not sure if there is any freeness issues to it, but it is contoversial. This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions, if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using, selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in compliance with this License. This indicates that the GPL now does cover running the work, but only in this one case does it dissallow use. It also only covers use of a modified version. This could be possible under the not a contract theory, as copyright law does not private modifications without permission. 3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the
Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the This is bad for services where use of a modified client is disallowed or detrimental to other users, e.g. let's say there is a GPL3 game that uses a centralised server to play against other players. Under this section any modified clients have the keys needed to connect to the server in a way that is indistinguishable, so I could modify it and add cheat codes and other controversial things and under this section they would not be able to distinguish me and ban me. But on the other hand, I need the key to run my modified version that runs on a computer with two moniters. See how this can go both ways? The only way to prevent cheating in online games is to move virtually all game logic to the server side. If anything important is running on the client side, the client CAN cheat. The alternative is to use something like the TPM. I really don't think that is a good idea. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
On 7/29/06, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the This is bad for services where use of a modified client is disallowed or detrimental to other users, e.g. let's say there is a GPL3 game that uses a centralised server to play against other players. Under this section any modified clients have the keys needed to connect to the server in a way that is indistinguishable, so I could modify it and add cheat codes and other controversial things and under this section they would not be able to distinguish me and ban me. But on the other hand, I need the key to run my modified version that runs on a computer with two moniters. See how this can go both ways? Yes. The only way to prevent cheating in online games is to move virtually all game logic to the server side. If anything important is running on the client side, the client CAN cheat. The alternative is to use something like the TPM. Even moving all logic to the server side can't stop it. Online games especially need to be able to distinguish the 'official' client from a modified one. Even if all logic is on the server side, the client still receives data that must not be disclosed to the player, e.g. map data. A modified client could easily defeat that. A clause like this needs to allow for 'legitimate' modifications, e.g. your two screens example, but also allow an online service to block users that are dishonestly using their modification powers. I really don't think that is a good idea. What isn't? The TPM idea? -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license statement. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? 'Agreeable' is not precisely a derivative of 'agree'. I agree that if I drink alot of beer, I may very well be hung over the next morning. it does not mean I am in the least agreeable about the situation. What the statement reduces to is: licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions, and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may be consequences Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a restriction. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license statement. Freedom of software should also apply to people who don't agree with US export laws. -- Henning Makholm I can get fat! I can sing! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Even moving all logic to the server side can't stop it. Online games especially need to be able to distinguish the 'official' client from a modified one. Even if all logic is on the server side, the client still receives data that must not be disclosed to the player, e.g. map data. A modified client could easily defeat that. Why must data not to be disclosed be sent to the client? What if the client is nothing but an X11 server. Then it should be very easy to not send anything that the player must not see. A clause like this needs to allow for 'legitimate' modifications, e.g. your two screens example, but also allow an online service to block users that are dishonestly using their modification powers. I really don't think that is a good idea. What isn't? The TPM idea? Yeah the TPM. But this is getting a little offtopic. The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions while aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They really are the same problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
On 7/29/06, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions while aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They really are the same problem. The issue is how the GPLv3 affects a service provider's right to put restrictions on usage of a service, not copyright licensing. However it is quite close to DRM and I can see why the FSF is putting this clause in. Whilst it may be detrimental for some, it does prevent the use of DRM, and of course there is always the option of using the GPLv2. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
