Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 25/05/07, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and unnecessary is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs, documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already addressed in this thread. I keep hearing about how important it is to have everything licensed the same way because you can't move GGPL code into a GFDL manual or move code from the GFDL manual into a GGPL manual (extra G added on GPL just for fun). I don't understand. The GFDL allows free modification of code (since it's a technical section, can't be invariant), so what's the big deal? Moreover, the document that describes how to apply GFDL even suggests itself to license code in the manual under the GPL, if this code is substantial (which it rarely is; I can't think of a GNU manual that has any considerable amount of code that can't already be extracted and used under the terms of the GFDL). I have strong disagreements with Debian's treatment of the GFDL (and it makes us Debianistas look like fundamentalist wackos to the rest of the free software world), but perhaps those are concerns for another time. I just don't see why it's such a problem to have software, as Debian calls documentation, with different licenses for intended different usages. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:05:54 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: [...] If you use the word proprietary, you are merely echoing the terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their marketing slogan Unix is proprietary, Windows is open? If you use the word proprietary correctly, then linux is proprietary. proprietary means has an owner (which ALL copyrighted works do). The opposite of proprietary is Public Domain. Sorry, but I have to disagree. Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom). There are already enough people who are mistaken about the two *orthogonal* distinctions commercial/non-commercial and proprietary/free. Let's not add to the confusion, please! Free == grants all the important freedoms (see the FSD or the DFSG) Proprietary == non-free Commercial == is created/distributed for profit Non-commercial == is created/distributed in a not-for-profit manner [1] please note that I am *not* claiming that you're wrong about its Microsoft-ish descendancy [2] at least in the free software community -- 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 pgprFDOrMblcc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:38:50 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] [...] 2. The GFDL: [...] FDL, please. It's not GGPL. Even if you may (rightfully) consider that awkward, the FSF itself calls the licenses GFDL and GPL. Yes, it's not symmetrical, but they wrote the licenses and chose their names: I think they have the right to decide the official acronyms... -- 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 pgpZCVTFuSBBh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please vet this modified CC license for uploading FoF music to non-free
On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:31:21 -0400 Jason Spiro wrote: [...] So, I took http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode and made some changes. Do you have the permission to create a derivative license of CC-by-nd-nc-v1.0 ? I don't recall which is the Creative Commons policy on modifying their licenses. For example, I changed Creative Commons Legal Code to Restricted Media Legal Code. I didn't use the name Frets on Fire there since I don't want people to think the license applies to the whole game. It is only for Tommi Inkila's music. As another example, I removed the trademark-related text. I hereby release the new license text to the public domain. Do you actually have the authorization to dedicate your derivative license to the public domain? I'm puzzled... -- 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 pgpqzOYy1eBkJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:30:24 +0200 Sam Hocevar wrote: [Cc:ing -legal, but please try to follow-up on only one list] Choosing debian-legal... I am having a chat tonight with people from the FSF. You could have announced this earlier, then. :-( Despite the inevitable disagreements between Debian and the FSF, I am willing to cooperate in a constructive manner on as many topic as possible. Here are the topics we'll be discussing so far: 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from -legal I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion. See http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED] My comments can be also read here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?Query=%20Creator%20=%20'frx'%20%20AND%20'CF.NoteUrl'%20LIKE%20'gplv3-draft-3'%20Rows=50 and despite its concerns with the strategies developed in some sections, Debian does consider it DFSG-free. I do not remember any conclusion in this direction. Draft3 is better than the horrors of the previous drafts, but I am currently still *unsatisfied*. Debian will however not push for its adoption, mainly because we still have much software that is GPLv2-only in the distribution. We will discuss what role Debian could play in the official launch of the licence. I think it would have been better to discuss how the FSF can fix the remaining issues of the GPLv3-draft3. 2. The GFDL: the Debian project does not consider the GFDL a free software licence as long as the work includes invariant sections. Or front cover texts, or back cover texts, or dedications, or any other unmodifiable parts whose name I cannot remember now. We decided (through a GR) that it was otherwise free, mainly because we expected the FSF to fix the (in our opinion) badly worded DRM clause. I would love to have a telepathy device, but unfortunately I don't. How can you know the actual reasons why people voted the way they did for GR-2006-001? I even asked (on debian-vote) to the last DPL candidates to explain the rationale behind their ballots for GR-2006-001 and only some of them (including you) answered: that makes some 4 or 5 explanations; what about the rest of the Debian Developers who voted or didn't vote for that GR? It is also not a licence we are willing to actively promote and we recommend double-licensing GFDL works under an additional free software licence such as the GPL. I would be really surprised if Debian actively promoted the GFDL... The winning option of GR-2006-001, though being absurd and ill-phrased, stated quite clearly that the GFDL has issues and should be recommended against. 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences When was the CDDL accepted as a license that meets the DFSG?!? I can remember some discussion where no real consensus was reached. See http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED] as a summary. and would welcome any solution to the distribution of a Debian system based on OpenSolaris. The simplest solution is persuading Sun to relicense (or dual-license) OpenSolaris under a GPLv2-compatible license. Sun publicly claimed to have understood the importance of GPL-compatibility when they started to release their Java implementation under the GPLv2: I don't see a valid reason that could block such a relicensing or dual-licensing. I have summarised Debian's concerns about the legality of distributing a system containing a CDDL libc and GPLv2 software such as Nexenta, and the FSF legal team is working on the issue and is going to answer us (it will take several weeks, though). The timeframe is short but if you have additional topics to suggest I'll gladly bring them up. Also please correct me if what I have gathered does not seem to reflect the project's opinion. I don't think that what you gathered reflects debian-legal contributors' opinions. And I am disappointed that you contacted us so late. :-( -- 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 pgpu0H8GhJAk7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug #383316: Derivative works for songs
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:30:07 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... [...] I believe that for a recording to be DFSG-free, we need *both* copyrights to be licensed in a DFSG-free manner. It seems to make sense. For modifying the *song*, the preferred form is almost certainly sheet music or the equivalent. MIDI files are actually very close to sheet music, And indeed, I would be satisfied with the MIDI file as source for the song, as long as the MIDI file corresponds to the complete song (and not to one instrument only, for instance...). I do not happen to know if this is the case here, and that's why I said I'm not sure. A clarification should be sought, IMHO. [...] For modifying the *recording*, the preferred form is likely the recording itself. Overdubs, post-processing, and sampling are common ways in which derivative works are made from a a *recording*. For this purpose, an Ogg Vorbis is likely to be exactly right. I'm not really convinced: we must ask the person(s) who made the recording. If there are non-lossy-compressed recordings of the separate tracks, they could be preferred for making modifications. So I believe we want to have both the Ogg Vorbis and the MIDI, and that probably really is the source. (Unless there's a higher-quality master recording and the Ogg Vorbis is a lower-quality version, or the MIDI doesn't actually contain all the data in the sheet music, etc.) Your parenthetical sentence just expresses the concerns that I had in mind when I said I'm not sure. A clarification is needed. Now, it would be preferable to be able to regenerate the recording from the MIDI. Which would mean including the soundfonts (instrument descriptions, basically) used. So the question of whether *they* are free is also important. Really important, IMO. Here's a legal question: Do you need a copyright license for the soundfont in order to distribute or modify the recording made using them? I don't know, but I'm afraid we need one, as long as the soundfonts are copyrightable works by themselves... -- 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 pgpm3trLMgpOU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug #383316: Derivative works for songs
Francesco Poli wrote: Now, it would be preferable to be able to regenerate the recording from the MIDI. Which would mean including the soundfonts (instrument descriptions, basically) used. So the question of whether they are free is also important. Really important, IMO. Here's a legal question: Do you need a copyright license for the soundfont in order to distribute or modify the recording made using them? I don't know, but I'm afraid we need one, as long as the soundfonts are copyrightable works by themselves... what if the recording was of actual people playing actual instruments? You know, like people always used to. How to you generate that from 'source' at build time? what _is_ the source? Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct. Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I haven't asked for that. Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I keep hearing about how important it is to have everything licensed the same way because you can't move GGPL code into a GFDL manual or move code from the GFDL manual into a GGPL manual (extra G added on GPL just for fun). I don't understand. The GFDL allows free modification of code (since it's a technical section, can't be invariant), so what's the big deal? The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with taking part of a work under a different license and combining it with the GPL work to distribute. If all the software in the package was licensed under the GPL, then parts of the documentation could be mixed freely with the programs, and vice versa, to create a derived work to distribute; the same license terms apply to all of the software so the GPL terms are met. Moreover, the document that describes how to apply GFDL even suggests itself to license code in the manual under the GPL, if this code is substantial (which it rarely is; I can't think of a GNU manual that has any considerable amount of code that can't already be extracted and used under the terms of the GFDL). The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose descriptive parts could be combined into the data, for instance; if the license does not allow this, an essential freedom is denied. On the other hand, if the author acknowledges that *any* part of the work could be useful for some recipient to combine with other parts of the work, *even if the author can't conceive of it initially*, then the logical thing to do is to license all parts of the work under the same terms. Further, when parts of a work licensed under GPL are combined into the FDL-licensed work, the result is *not redistributable at all*, because the GPL says the resulting work must be entirely licensed under GPL, which conflicts with the FDL work's license terms. I have strong disagreements with Debian's treatment of the GFDL (and it makes us Debianistas look like fundamentalist wackos to the rest of the free software world), but perhaps those are concerns for another time. I just don't see why it's such a problem to have software, as Debian calls documentation, with different licenses for intended different usages. Hopefully you now have a better understanding of some of the problems. There are others, that have been covered elsewhere in this thread. -- \ If you do not trust the source do not use this program. -- | `\ Microsoft Vista security dialogue | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please vet this modified CC license for uploading FoF music to non-free
On 5/27/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:31:21 -0400 Jason Spiro wrote: [...] So, I took http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode and made some changes. Do you have the permission to create a derivative license of CC-by-nd-nc-v1.0 ? I don't recall which is the Creative Commons policy on modifying their licenses. CC releases their license texts public domain. http://creativecommons.org/policies: Except where noted otherwise below in our Trademark Policy, all content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. We do not assert a copyright in the text of our licenses. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
