Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow the DFSG. I am following the DFSG and I feel it is best to point out when something is close to the edge, or is something accepted but many dislike. I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere. Then why continue the discussion of it here? I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license. Exactly. They are referenced in section 2, but not identified. If there are no such rights, why are they mentioned? I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it. Neither of these are freeness issues. Section 2 does not say that all rights of the USG are in this licence. I don't know whether it's a freeness issue or not, as it's incomplete. -- 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: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Huh? Please go learn who are the official arbiters of BCFG licence acceptance (it isn't me) before screaming 'abuse of power! abuse of power!' 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. Which I did. I post from a personal non-debian address, with a footer that states very clearly this is only my opinion and links to a statement that makes it quite clear I am NOT a representative of Debian in this situation. The page with that statement also links through to fuller descriptions. Please try to read posts before making silly accusations about them. This does nothing to build faith in the odd intepretation of my native language in the 'agree' subthread, as it suggests an inability to read. 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: Proposed new IETF license
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted: [...] 3.3. Rights Granted by Contributors to IETF Trust To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright or other rights of authorship, the Contributor [...] grant a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the IETF Trust under all such copyrights and other rights in the Contribution [...] The licenses granted in this Section 3.3 shall not be deemed to grant any right under any patent, patent application or other similar intellectual property right disclosed by the Contributor under BCP 79 or otherwise. So that is IETF gets 'copyright or other rights of authorship' and 'all such copyrights and other rights' permissions but NOT 'any patent, patent application or other similar intellectual property right disclosed [...]'. It looks to me like IETF is dividing rights into two groups and only getting permission to one group, but it is not clear to me where the boundary is. Seems a bit cloudy. 3.8 Rights Granted by the IETF Trust to Third Parties [...] (A) to copy, publish, display, and distribute each IETF Document (including all Contributions and other portions thereof) in unmodified form, Really, we want s/unmodified/whole or in part/ like 3.3(A). (C) to extract, modify, incorporate into other works, copy, publish, display, and distribute executable code or code fragments that are included in any IETF Document (such as MIB and PIB modules), subject to the notification requirements of Section 5. Yes, I think this is sufficient for code fragments extracted from RFCs to be distributed with Debian. Section 5 just appears to be usual copyright notices, if I'm reading the right thing. Hope that helps, -- 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: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm wrote: What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement, which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what the catch is. It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they can point at that license and say See! We warned them! It's not our fault Thay would be able to cover their asses just fine by simply informing the licensee that those laws exist. Lots of fine licenses do that. However, this clause does not simply inform about a fact. It requires the _licensee_ to do something, namely to agree. Some people in this threa claim that the action being required is not that of holding the same opinion as that of the export law, but one of acknowledging it. I don't even _know_ how to perform that action to the satisfaction of the court. If I am to communicate acknowledgement to the licensor, the software becomes postcardware and therefore non-free. What I am saying is that if the author sues me with a claim that my copying was unautorized becaus I have not performed the act of agreeing that bla bla bla that was a condition of getting the license, how would I go about convincing the court that he is wrong and I did in fact do what the licensor wanted me to. (Assume here that I _know_ what it is that the licensor wanted me to, which I don't). At least I know what opinions I have. If Licensee agrees does not mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I have acknowledged the law in a proper manner that allows me to use the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist. It is true that there are bugs in Debian. That does not mean that a free license can require me to tell the licensor that. -- Henning MakholmUnmetered water, dear. Run it deep. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm wrote: What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement, which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what the catch is. It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they can point at that license and say See! We warned them! It's not our fault Thay would be able to cover their asses just fine by simply informing the licensee that those laws exist. Lots of fine licenses do that. However, this clause does not simply inform about a fact. It requires the _licensee_ to do something, namely to agree. Some people in this threa claim that the action being required is not that of holding the same opinion as that of the export law, but one of acknowledging it. I don't even _know_ how to perform that action to the satisfaction of the court. If I am to communicate acknowledgement to the licensor, the software becomes postcardware and therefore non-free. By using the rights given to you by the license. Your use of the rights is contingent on acceptance of the terms of the license, thus by exercising those rights, your are demonstrating your acknowledgment. Think of the GPL. By distributing software under the GPL, you are acknowledging the terms of the GPL (SCO excluded) and you are then bound by them. This license just explicitly requires you to acknowledge a fact of US law, which you do by the act of distribution/modification. What I am saying is that if the author sues me with a claim that my copying was unautorized becaus I have not performed the act of agreeing that bla bla bla that was a condition of getting the license, how would I go about convincing the court that he is wrong and I did in fact do what the licensor wanted me to. (Assume here that I _know_ what it is that the licensor wanted me to, which I don't). At least I know what opinions I have. If Licensee agrees does not mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I have acknowledged the law in a proper manner that allows me to use the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist. It is true that there are bugs in Debian. That does not mean that a free license can require me to tell the licensor that. This was an example of the difference between the two types of 'agree', not saying a license should say that. Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: license review of the subcommander package
Andreas Fester [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would appreciate a quick review of the debian/copyright file of the subcommander package: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/subcommander/ [...] The license is basically GPL, but the package includes a few additional licenses, especially for the icons. The main licence is GPL with Qt additional permission. The additional licences are: - LGPL - Tigris/CollabNet licence (ad-clause licence, similar to Apache-1?) - This manual page was written by Andreas Fester, [EMAIL PROTECTED], for the Debian Project and might be used freely by others. I think you should replace might with may there. Is there anything which could make the package being rejected? I think the Tigris licence is incompatible with the GPL and there's a .h file under the Tigris licence. I expect that .h file is compiled in somehow. That could be a problem. Sorry to bring bad news, -- 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]
Auto
Mhz. Upgrading Clean Recovery Console Hard Repair bottom StuffMy picture Answer: idea AAAS Board TheoryThe theory support good wonder where certain word policies would permit calls upon members assist dont Recommend GuestBook Object MovedThis object NetSearch DRIVEs Read.st MultiTask Cybershot DSCN Hamilton Beach Ice placed light depth reflected picked bunch sensors. skin avoid burning combined create pattern. depending nights lucky convert hobby making Cars Transport general jump. Stun Gun clothing cars. wheeled beauties team. Floods Antilock Brake Opinions: Lebanon Gregg Nicholas mortal find cracks empire. Berrien County Action Committee Cable Tools: Reference Finder Paste FreePDF executive summary Table flaw. Second region routinely expanded intact minimized increase amplitude Jul. Apr. CJKLyX Check WYSIWYM Ehhh... explain. structure license. city councils policemen pretty friendly. surprised figured gone headed Boeing antisub Best Efforts Uhauled Chicago Palm sounding might resolve little Search: Options Joe Wilcox Staff Writer PDT TalkBack Summary Major Guide CFR Rules zoom degrees chains context meaning. shouldnt virtual response provided critiques flaws lack credible challenge quality Directors adopts claim soon. Thanks advance patience. styleHOME letters posts was published here... but read Walkmans theres Let true Browser MSIE Netscape generic Find game: Frenzy NEW Hammer Heads Heavy Perkins
Re: license review of the subcommander package
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the Tigris licence is incompatible with the GPL and there's a .h file under the Tigris licence. I expect that .h file is compiled in somehow. That could be a problem. Not for any sane person, since it's just a few #defines for version strings and trivial macros. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
