Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:25 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: I still don't see the problem. First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is all bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG. Copyright law is not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception. Neither do licenses, which are distributed because of necessity, are extensions (or applications, if you will) of copyright law, and must be taken as such, like the SC and DFSG do. Second, what will happen in practice is that there will be text that is so short and functional that it can't be copyrighted. Example: package is under the GPL. The FSF then says you can reuse the text of the GPL as long as you change the name. There's no infinite regress, because you can reuse the text of the GPL as long as you change the name isn't copyrightable. This is just one of many possible cases. Someone might want copyleft terms for their meta-license, and might end up with a license that is copyrightable, which then in turn needs a license. We can't anticipate all cases, but your example is no more likely than the next. Anyway, we're already far beyond what is practical and although this has been interesting for me because I've had the chance to dig a bit deeper into these documents and concepts, I feel that we're already outside the meeting room, discussing in the corridor, lights are being shut off, everyone else has gone home and the janitor is rattling with his keychain and giving us meaningful looks as he's making his final round before locking up for the weekend... :) Thanks, -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is all bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG. Copyright law is not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception. Neither do licenses, which are distributed because of necessity, Something that is distributed by necessity is still distributed. Copyright law is actually *not distributed* by Debian. We don't have a text file which says Current Copyright Law and which includes excerpts from legal codes and judges' decisions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Ion3 licence
Le samedi 28 avril 2007 à 02:27 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : Then I think you've misread. Patch clauses and name change clauses are explicitly allowed under the DFSG, although they are discouraged for obvious reasons. The fact that some revisionists dislike them doesn't make them fodder for non-free. There's no revisionism going on here, AFAICT. The quoted clause 3 seems to be neither a patch-only clause, nor a name-change clause. They are a name-change clause: without the name change the license is non-free, with the name change it is. This seems to mean that I can redistribute an *unaltered* package for 28 days from its initial release, then this permission suddenly *disappears*, *unless* I change the name to something unrelated or add a word such as ancient to the name itself. We're talking about an original *unmodified* version of the work, while DFSG#4 talks about modified versions of works: Then let's modify it - say, by renaming it and adding a debian/ directory - and we'll have a modified version that's DFSG-free. In fact, the above-quoted clause 3 fails to meet DFSG#1, which states: ] 1. Free Redistribution ] The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from ^^^ ] selling or giving away the software as a component of an ^^^ Sure, we cannot distribute the non-modified one. And we can distribute the modified version. No problem here either. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: New Ion3 licence
Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 à 17:18 +0100, MJ Ray a écrit : Is this what is going to happen to free software as it becomes more popular? Every author's ego projection will trump sharing and redistribution? Heck, if their ego is that demanding, why don't they call the official version Brian Clough's ion3 (or whatever the author's name is)? Looks like the only one who managed to flatter his ego while keeping his software DFSG-free is Hans Reiser. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: New Ion3 licence
On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:33:16 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 28 avril 2007 à 02:27 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : [...] This seems to mean that I can redistribute an *unaltered* package for 28 days from its initial release, then this permission suddenly *disappears*, *unless* I change the name to something unrelated or add a word such as ancient to the name itself. We're talking about an original *unmodified* version of the work, while DFSG#4 talks about modified versions of works: Then let's modify it - say, by renaming it and adding a debian/ directory - and we'll have a modified version that's DFSG-free. No, I don't think it would be DFSG-free, because clause 3 would apply to the modified version too, and nobody could redistribute the *unaltered* Debian package after 28 days from its initial release, without a further rename... But anyway, let's stop discussing about this clause 3. Now upstream seems to be considering a different licensing strategy: staying with LGPL as far as copyright is concerned, and adding non-free trademark restrictions. Please take a look at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00252.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgplr19w7BNRg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New Ion3 licence
On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:39:37 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 à 17:18 +0100, MJ Ray a écrit : Is this what is going to happen to free software as it becomes more popular? Every author's ego projection will trump sharing and redistribution? Heck, if their ego is that demanding, why don't they call the official version Brian Clough's ion3 (or whatever the author's name is)? Looks like the only one who managed to flatter his ego while keeping his software DFSG-free is Hans Reiser. Maybe, but after long and heated discussions (I remember one on debian-legal, back on April/May 2004...). -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpGV7mUdO5nJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Problem with LARGE files
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Would it be reasonable to request someone had to spend £100 on an external hard disc and postage if they wanted to request the source to my program? and is there any way I could ever get such a program into Debian? Perhaps a different license? The GPL allows you to charge for the cost of distributing source. If you state up front that if the customer wants source, it's provided on a hard disk and costs £100, I can't see a problem. Indeed, if it's that big, and impractical to provide on DVD, I can't see a problem if you *don't* state that up front. Of course, if you charge £100, you'll get the gratis software police moaning blue murder that it's not free but the GPL (and *F*ree Software) isn't interested in that sort of argument. At the end of the day, the GPL allows you to recover reasonable costs for distributing source, and if you say that the only reasonable way to distribute that quantity of source is on hard disk, then they have to pay for it if they want it. And you can say to them well, you put it on a free download site then. I don't care!. Unless they've got more money than sense, or are desperate to flaunt their gratis credentials, they'll back off sharply! Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
