Re: BCFG Public License
On Sunday 30 July 2006 02:07, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 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. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion. The authors of the license are not asking you to agree with the idea of export licensing. They are asking you to agree to the following statement: As things currently stand in the us, there are some things subject to export licensing. If you export $thing, you can either first get a license, or you may get in trouble with the government. The 'require' comes from the US governement, not the authors of the license. I think we can both agree that the author's assessment matches current reality, so it doesn't seem worth debating that. Finally, failure to get the license may (only may, not will, must, or even 'really should') get you in trouble under US laws, and in no way affects your status as licensee. Does that clear things up? Yes, thanks for the nice explanation. I remember we have discussed that in the past [1], but we ended up to [2]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00075.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00105.html Now, let's see if I understand and interpret that correctly: Licensee even might be kept liable under the above law despite his not accepting the same law (some jurisdiction respect others jurisdiction laws, by means of various bilateral agreements, and other complicated and boring documents, we are hardly aware of). So, the clause 7. of the BCFG license is only meant to warn the licensees to obey the laws (I believe that they could be kept liable even without that clause being added to the BCFG), and covers licensor's ass (as said in another mail). If so, there is nothing we can do, no matter what law we accept/agree with or we do not. Hm, then I tend to agree that it is hardly non-free. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- 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, Walter Landry said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: 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. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while the advertising clause was not removed until 1999. However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons. I understand that many people are unhappy with the advertising clause. I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so clearly laid out in the DFSG. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
license review of the subcommander package
Hi, I would appreciate a quick review of the debian/copyright file of the subcommander package: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/subcommander/ dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/subcommander/subcommander_1.1.0-1.dsc The license is basically GPL, but the package includes a few additional licenses, especially for the icons. Is there anything which could make the package being rejected? Thanks in advance best Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Fester mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.littletux.net ICQ: 326674288 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: 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. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while the advertising clause was not removed until 1999. However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons. I understand that many people are unhappy with the advertising clause. I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so clearly laid out in the DFSG. Debian-legal often gives advice beyond what is required. For example, the DFSG says nothing about license proliferation. Would you have debian-legal refrain from telling people to use standard licenses? It is not like the original response (Accepted but unpopular) was incorrect. It is accepted, but it is also unpopular. Cheers, Walter Landry [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, John Goerzen said: Hi, 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. This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so clearly laid out in the DFSG. Debian-legal often gives advice beyond what is required. For example, the DFSG says nothing about license proliferation. Would you have debian-legal refrain from telling people to use standard licenses? It is not like the original response (Accepted but unpopular) was incorrect. It is accepted, but it is also unpopular. Since the original question was (quoted above) about what the current policy is, it is disingenuous at best to pretend that it is anything but whole heartedly supported. If you have personal issues with the license, feel free to express them as an individual, just don't try to misrepresent those opinions as the opinions of Debian. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep -i landry /var/lib/apt/lists/* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Maybe the problem here is that you haven't agreed to follow the DFSG? The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian. If you, as a private netizen, have problems with the 4 clause BSD license, that's fine. Just please represent your opinions as your opinions. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran writes: Maybe the problem here is that you haven't agreed to follow the DFSG? Could you please point out where the SC or DFSG forbid any kind of (statement of) disagreement with their policies? Such a clause is certainly not in keeping with the rest of the DFSG or with the general cause of free software. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
