Re: CDDL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago. It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant. There is no consensus that choice of venue clauses are not DSFG-compliant, anyway. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Re]distribution of disk images
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes * Ottavio Caruso: I'd like to post some Debian disk images, created from original Debian packages, to some sites via http or bittorrent. What legal obligations have I or the hosting site? If the packages are all from the /main repository, and presumably mostly GPL, do I have to make the sources available or can I simply point to the Debian repositories, e.g. My understanding of the GPL is that you must make the sources available, on your server. WRONG (imho). *IF* Ottavio is a private individual, then he can take advantage of the pass on the offer you received to obtain the source clause of the GPL. Of course, if Ottavio is posting on behalf of a company, and it's the company that is putting the stuff on the server, then you're right. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Re]distribution of disk images
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:40:39 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes [...] My understanding of the GPL is that you must make the sources available, on your server. WRONG (imho). *IF* Ottavio is a private individual, then he can take advantage of the pass on the offer you received to obtain the source clause of the GPL. That is true, *as long as* there is such an offer. But, in the present case, there is no such offer, because the Debian Project distributes GPLed software under clause 3a, and *not* under clause 3b. Hence, Ottavio has no offer to pass on in the first place and cannot distribute under 3c, even assuming he distributes in a noncommercial manner. Hope that clarifies. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp8ouy9qCht2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Re]distribution of disk images
Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes * Ottavio Caruso: I'd like to post some Debian disk images, created from original Debian packages, to some sites via http or bittorrent. What legal obligations have I or the hosting site? If the packages are all from the /main repository, and presumably mostly GPL, do I have to make the sources available or can I simply point to the Debian repositories, e.g. My understanding of the GPL is that you must make the sources available, on your server. WRONG (imho). *IF* Ottavio is a private individual, then he can take advantage of the pass on the offer you received to obtain the source clause of the GPL. Thank you. Two more questions: 1) Does it make any difference if it is a [hard]disk image or an installation cd? 2) Is there any template that I can use? For example: This [distribution OR disk image] contains unmodified binaries from the Debian 'main' repository. Package source are available at packages.debian.org. Example: package 'bash' http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/bash We believe that this way, as a non commercial entity, we comply with art 3,c of the G.P.L. v2. However if this in not enough for you, you can request a cd with all the sources at the price of $10 + the shipping fee. Would that be enough and legally valid? Ottavio Caruso Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun has an ombudsman
Hi, I saw the swift reaction on bug #276302: [Sun License for JavaCC] which has been an issue for years (upstream claims it is free software under a modern bsd license, but some files had additional restriction). Getting a real answer, an acknowledgment that this is a problem with regard to the DFSG and a solution to the problem makes it now possible to package this package for Debian main. So I send a Thanks! to some people at Sun for their handling of this issue. They reminded me that Sun has an ombudsman that is responsible for solving these kinds of issues the free software community might have with software Sun distributes. In the past a lot of people (me included) have been pretty skeptical about Sun's motives and their effectiveness with regard to understanding and handling community issues. But since their OpenJDK initiative, they have been engaging and interacting with the existing libre java communities (GNU Classpath, gcj, kaffe friends), acknowledging that cooperation is the way forward. They do seem genuine in their efforts cleaning ship with respect to their GPL Java initiative and java packages Sun creates on top of that. Because I know Simon Phipps, who coordinated a lot between the communities with respect to the launch of OpenJDK, is the person currently monitoring and handling [EMAIL PROTECTED], I would like to encourage people to email him whenever they spot things like the nuclear clause in packages from Sun which prevent them going into main. Even if those issues have been open for years without a clear path to a solution. Especially with regard to their java-packages Sun really is spring-cleaning now. So make the best of it! :) Cheers, Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NetBeans ITP [was Re: CDDL]
Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago. It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant. There is no consensus that choice of venue clauses are not DSFG-compliant, anyway. Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is* given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1]. Why is this important? Because Sun has several software projects that are licensed under CDDL that we would really, really like accepted into Debian. The key example is our NetBeans IDE. The purpose of packaging NetBeans for Debian is to give Free Software developers *a chance* to evaluate this development tool and compare it to other tools available. Until very, very recently this hasn't even been possible as we are fully aware that NetBeans has had various non-free dependencies (which would have blocked it's inclusion in main). Thus the primary rationale for liberating javac and JavaHelp as part of the Java Open Source launch [2] was to free these key dependencies for NetBeans. Today NetBeans also depends on the Sun Java runtime. We have done some research with Free Java implementations to demonstrate functionality on a runtime currently in main and this work is ongoing. So you can transparently see the trajectory of Sun Java becoming itself a Free Java runtime in early 2007 [2]. In the interim I am very pleased in our work together to date to get Sun Java into non-free under the DLJ [3]. And so the trajectory for NetBeans, therefore, is we would like to package all dependent parts which are recognized as DFSG compliant for main (CDDL, GPL packages) and prepare a NetBeans package under CDDL which depends (initially) on the non-free Sun Java runtime [3] such that upon the full liberation of Sun Java that NetBeans will become a candidate for main. I know that CDDL has been discussed many, many times on d-l in the past. In light of Sun's commitment to Free Software and our desire to make this software available to Debian Developers and users it is apropos to work towards consensus on the DFSG status of CDDL. I welcome your comments and concerns. Respectfully, --Tom [1] http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue [2] http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/ [3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sun-java5.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NetBeans ITP [was Re: CDDL]
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 18:18, Tom Marble a écrit : Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago. It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant. There is no consensus that choice of venue clauses are not DSFG-compliant, anyway. Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is* given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1]. Why is this important? Because Sun has several software projects that are licensed under CDDL that we would really, really like accepted into Debian. The key example is our NetBeans IDE. The purpose of packaging NetBeans for Debian is to give Free Software developers *a chance* to evaluate this development tool and compare it to other tools available. Thanks for mentioning Netbeans, Tom. This is exactly the application I had in mind. I chose it over Eclipse for my Java development and I'd like very much to be part of main some day. Regards, -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NetBeans ITP [was Re: CDDL]
Tom Marble Tom.Marble at Sun.COM writes: Until very, very recently this hasn't even been possible as we are fully aware that NetBeans has had various non-free dependencies (which would have blocked it's inclusion in main). Thus the primary rationale for liberating javac and JavaHelp as part of the Java Open Source launch [2] was to free these key dependencies for NetBeans. Today NetBeans also depends on the Sun Java runtime. We have done some research with Free Java implementations to demonstrate functionality on a runtime currently in main and this work is ongoing. We did some work for the upcoming 0.93 release of GNU Classpath trying to get NetBeans running, but this is still some way in the future. There are some parts/plugins which partially startup/run, but for getting the full IDE working some serious effort will still be needed. And so the trajectory for NetBeans, therefore, is we would like to package all dependent parts which are recognized as DFSG compliant for main (CDDL, GPL packages) and prepare a NetBeans package under CDDL which depends (initially) on the non-free Sun Java runtime [3] such that upon the full liberation of Sun Java that NetBeans will become a candidate for main. I know that CDDL has been discussed many, many times on d-l in the past. In light of Sun's commitment to Free Software and our desire to make this software available to Debian Developers and users it is apropos to work towards consensus on the DFSG status of CDDL. I welcome your comments and concerns. One really nice thing of Sun's announcement was the fact that they streamlined the licensing process of all of the Java editions. Not just jse (openjdk), but also jme and jee. The FAQ even says: Q: How does this announcement affect Java EE? A: Sun's implementation of Java EE 5 has been available as open-source under the CDDL license through the GlassFish Community since June of 2005. In order to gain all of the benefits of the GPL v2 license and to be able to offer implementations of the entire set of Java platforms under the same license, the GlassFish application server source code will be made available under the GPL v2 license with Classpath exception in addition to the CDDL, By adding a second license, we simplify the process of combining and distributing GlassFish code with other GPL licensed communities. By offering all of Java under a common license, developers can now more easily collaborate on and distribute updated versions of Java SE, Java EE, and Java ME together. A similar argument could be made for NetBeans. While there is a discussion about the CDDL and whether it is acceptable according to DFSG or needs modernizing please do start packaging the various NetBeans dependencies. There is already a packaging effort on the way for the GPLed javac. And since JavaHelp has now be released under GPL+exception it can also immediately be packaged. While packaging eclipse a lot of work was needed for extracting all the dependencies bundled upstream into separate packages for easy reuse and making it possible to update the independent parts easily. Starting early on that is a good idea, especially since the separate parts might be beneficial on their own and as dependencies for other applications (like Glashfish for example). Cheers, Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NetBeans ITP [was Re: CDDL]
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 à 11:18 -0600, Tom Marble a écrit : Why is this important? Because Sun has several software projects that are licensed under CDDL that we would really, really like accepted into Debian. The key example is our NetBeans IDE. The purpose of packaging NetBeans for Debian is to give Free Software developers *a chance* to evaluate this development tool and compare it to other tools available. Please note that we don't accept software in Debian just because it is useful, but also because it is free. That said, I agree with some of the arguments given about the choice-of-venue clause. It is a bad clause, but I don't think it makes a piece of software non-free. There is no consensus about it on debian-legal. About Netbeans, I don't understand how it would be distributable if running over a GPL JVM, as the CDDL and the GPL are incompatible. Cheers, -- Josselin Mouette/\./\ Do you have any more insane proposals for me? signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: NetBeans ITP [was Re: CDDL]
Josselin Mouette wrote: Please note that we don't accept software in Debian just because it is useful, but also because it is free. Understood. That said, I agree with some of the arguments given about the choice-of-venue clause. It is a bad clause, but I don't think it makes a piece of software non-free. There is no consensus about it on debian-legal. The ideal outcome of this thread would be that the interpretation of the choice-of-venue clause would permit packages (such as NetBeans) to be accepted in Debian. About Netbeans, I don't understand how it would be distributable if running over a GPL JVM, as the CDDL and the GPL are incompatible. The interim solution is depending on the DLJ JVM (non-free) which would mean that during that period NetBeans, also, would need to be in non-free. Once the the full JVM is available under GPL then running applications on top of it *are* compatible with any license as this was the specific rationale for adding the Classpath exception [1]. Thanks, --Tom [1] http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
