Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
Francesco Poli wrote: Shriramana, which category does the database you need belong to? I do not understand which category you mean. It's a database of latitude/longitude/elevation data for places around the globe. See geonames.org. P.S.: I am a debian-legal subscriber, so please do not Cc: me, as I didn't asked anyone to do so... Thanks. If I have done this unwittingly I apologise. Shriramana. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
By the by, is CC-3.0-BY itself DFSG-free? It is not listed at http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses but since CC-1.0 is non-DFSG-free, do I assume that CC-3.0 itself is not free? I have not inlined or attached the text (nor started a separate thread) since as OP my main question is not about that. Here are links: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode Shriramana. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 00:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : Hi all, I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is actually used to impose specific restrictions. PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development. It is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3. Its licensing page[2] states: | Under section 7 of the GPLv3 we require additional terms specific to | the types of software created using PySoy. The term game authors | should be aware of is that the PySoy and GPLv3 logos must be presented | to players in a legible manner and the GPLv3 text be accessible to | players (section 7b). | [...] | We provide textures for these logos and an easy mechanism to display | the GPLv3 license text as builtin classes so that this is as painless | as possible. Now I wonder: is this restriction really within the bounds of what section 7b allows to impose? I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to link the program with a library that requires preservation of reasonable legal notices. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
Paul Wise wrote: Other packages licensed under CC-3.0-BY are in main. For example the data in the whichwayisup game: Is there a way to search for this licensewise? Thanks. S:R) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 00:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : Hi all, I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is actually used to impose specific restrictions. PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development. It is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3. Its licensing page[2] states: | Under section 7 of the GPLv3 we require additional terms specific to | the types of software created using PySoy. The term game authors | should be aware of is that the PySoy and GPLv3 logos must be presented | to players in a legible manner and the GPLv3 text be accessible to | players (section 7b). | [...] | We provide textures for these logos and an easy mechanism to display | the GPLv3 license text as builtin classes so that this is as painless | as possible. Now I wonder: is this restriction really within the bounds of what section 7b allows to impose? I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to link the program with a library that requires preservation of reasonable legal notices. I agree. Requiring preservation of specified reasonable so is preservation: you cannot add further attributions (but if you write all the program, and you link to library that allow additional restrictions. Anyway it is not compatible with GPLv2 libraries. But I've the doubt with reasonable. I don't think logo are reasonable either because logos have normally additional restrictions (trademarks, but i think also a GPLv3 logo is not enough for an attribution), and because of the same problems of old BSD license. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monkey's Audio License Agreement
Dear people *, I have a question about a license. There's a software, the Monkey's Audio that has a license [1] a bit peculiar. So, my question is, if one package (GPL) use this software, has to go to contrib, or could go to main? Regards, Leo * I'm not in the list, so please make a CC to me if thre's some reply. [1] http://www.monkeysaudio.com/license.html -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 0xF944807E Catalonia pgpSfT9sgj0Ne.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Monkey's Audio License Agreement
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 13:57 +0200, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda a écrit : Dear people *, I have a question about a license. There's a software, the Monkey's Audio that has a license [1] a bit peculiar. So, my question is, if one package (GPL) use this software, has to go to contrib, or could go to main? Section 3 is clearly non-free, so the library itself would have to go to non-free. A GPL program can use it, but you need a specific exception allowing linking with this software from all copyright owners of GPL components. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Monkey's Audio License Agreement
A Dijous 06 Setembre 2007 14:27, Josselin Mouette va escriure: Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 13:57 +0200, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda a écrit : Dear people *, I have a question about a license. There's a software, the Monkey's Audio that has a license [1] a bit peculiar. So, my question is, if one package (GPL) use this software, has to go to contrib, or could go to main? Section 3 is clearly non-free, so the library itself would have to go to non-free. A GPL program can use it, but you need a specific exception allowing linking with this software from all copyright owners of GPL components. Ok, but there's one thing that I don't understand. If a soft is gpl that uses a non-free soft, doesn't go to contrib? My question is about a plugin that has in the source the non-free lib but itself is gpl, documented all in the License file. and all is a package, has to go to non-free? Or the maintainer has to separate in two packages, the non-free and the contrib part? Regards, Leo -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 0xF944807E Catalonia pgpBHNOKHFqav.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Monkey's Audio License Agreement
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 14:49 +0200, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda a écrit : My question is about a plugin that has in the source the non-free lib but itself is gpl, documented all in the License file. and all is a package, has to go to non-free? Or the maintainer has to separate in two packages, the non-free and the contrib part? Personally I would upload it entirely to non-free, but such a choice is the maintainer's to make. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Trademark scope (just for the record)
- Forwarded message from rick - Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:15:11 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: :-/ Quoting Trent W. Buck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): See http://bugs.debian.org/354622 for the full story. Sorry I didn't include that link before, I was lazy. As usual for trademark claims, the complainer greatly overstates the rights actually available to trademark owners[1]. Briefly stated, establishing a valid trademark entitles you to prohibit others in your same trade or profession from offering competing commercial goods or services[2] using your mark in a way likely to confuse your customers into thinking you have produced or endorsed the competing goods or services. All other uses of the mark are automatically lawful.[3] The standard way to disarm any possibility of a valid trademark infringement complaint is to (1) state who owns the trademark, and (2) say that trademark-owning party doesn't produce or endorse one's separate offering. Trademark law does _not_ entitle you to prohibit third-party uses you haven't licensed. It just doesn't. Trademark owners always pretend it does. It's a bluff.[4] And open source people fall for it every single time -- but one. The editors of _Linux Gazette_ faced down hostile trademark claims from SSC, Inc.: After the _Gazette_ staff left SSC's Web-hosting of their magazine, SSC suddenly asserted trademark ownership over the magazine's name, and threatened their Internet domain ownership and implied other possible legal remedies. The editors, who _did_ understand trademark law, declined to back down, and appended the following notice to the Web site and all issues of the magazine: Linux Gazette is not produced, sponsored, or endorsed by its prior host, SSC, Inc., which has been known to assert trademark claims despite our founding editor having clarified that he conveyed no trademark rights to them and that the magazine was to remain non-commercial. After observing that the magazine declined to be bullied, SSC eventually dropped that initiative entirely, and went away. And _Linux Gazette_ remains _Linux Gazette_. P.S.: When someone says you need to comply with his/her trademark policy, or says you need permission to use a trademarked name, reach for your wallet. ;- (This is not to suggest in any way that Mozilla Corporation are being evil. They're not: They're just trying to control the use of their trademarks, and prevent them from becoming generic, something all trademark owners are motivated to do. See the hyperlinks in footnote #4 for the reasons why.) [1] Characterisation should be broadly valid across, at minimum, all countries using English common law systems. Probably European continental civil law systems, too, but I cannot be sure. [2] A trademark over a (non-physical-goods) service is technically called a service mark. [3] Not counting other torts like trademark _disparagement_, in which you wrongfully sully the reputation of someone's trademark. [4] Don't take my word for it: http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2003/08/14/trademarks.html http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html -- Cheers, Rick Moen vi is my shepherd; I shall not font. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Psalm 0.1 beta (_Linux Gazette_ Contributing Editor, but speaking for himself, here.) - End forwarded message - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the by, is CC-3.0-BY itself DFSG-free? [...] My understanding is that the project is treating works under CC-3.0-BY as meeting the DFSG, but the CC-3.0-BY is a confusing licence with many unresolved questions (lawyerbombs) which I prefer to avoid. [The question asked is confused: DFSG are for software, not licences.] 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: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:17:11 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the by, is CC-3.0-BY itself DFSG-free? [...] My understanding is that the project is treating works under CC-3.0-BY as meeting the DFSG, ...unfortunately, I should add... :-( but the CC-3.0-BY is a confusing licence with many unresolved questions (lawyerbombs) which I prefer to avoid. IMO, it *fails* to meet the DFSG. But other people (including, apparently, the ftp-masters...) disagree with me. You[1] may take a look at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00192.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00024.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00023.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html and the threads that followed, for further details. [1] where You refers to Shriramana, not to MJ: I am pretty sure that MJ is well aware of those previous discussions! ;-) Ah, the usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- 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 pgp8ouBj2iDHD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:23:35 +0530 Shriramana Sharma wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: Shriramana, which category does the database you need belong to? I do not understand which category you mean. It's a database of latitude/longitude/elevation data for places around the globe. See geonames.org. I was referring to Arnoud's explanation (sorry for not being explicit enough). Paraphrasing Arnoud's words, you should basically ask yourself: * did the selection of the data that was put in the database involve creative activity by its maker? * was the database created by a European company? * do you have to sign an NDA before you get a copy of the database? -- 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 pgp0KzkGImyTd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Monkey's Audio License Agreement
Leopold Palomo Avellaneda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a question about a license. There's a software, the Monkey's Audio that has a license [1] a bit peculiar. For the purpose of context, we prefer the license text be posted in full in a message in the discussion thread. I've done so in this message. = Monkey's Audio Source Code License Agreement License Agreement 1. The Monkey's Audio SDK and source code can be freely used to add APE format playback, encoding, or tagging support to any product, free or commercial. Use of the code for proprietary efforts that don't support the official APE format require written consent of the author. 2. Monkey's Audio source can be included in GPL and open-source software, although Monkey's Audio itself will not be subjected to external licensing requirements or other viral source restrictions. 3. Code changes and improvements must be contributed back to the Monkey's Audio project free from restrictions or royalties for the sake of the common good, unless exempted by express written consent of the author. 4. Any source code, ideas, or libraries used must be plainly acknowledged in the software using the code. 5. Although the software has been tested thoroughly, the author is in no way responsible for damages due to bugs or misuse. 6. If you do not completely agree with all of the previous stipulations, you must cease using this source code and remove it from your storage device. All rights not expressly granted here are reserved by Matthew T. Ashland. - All materials and programs copyrighted ©2000-2006 by Matthew T. Ashland - - All rights reserved. - = -- \I washed a sock. Then I put it in the dryer. When I took it | `\ out, it was gone. -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Monkey's Audio License Agreement
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the purpose of context, we prefer the license text be posted in full in a message in the discussion thread. I've done so in this message. = Monkey's Audio Source Code License Agreement License Agreement 1. The Monkey's Audio SDK and source code can be freely used to add APE format playback, encoding, or tagging support to any product, free or commercial. Use of the code for proprietary efforts that don't support the official APE format require written consent of the author. DFSG requires permission to make derived works, which is usually interpreted as *any* derived work for *any* purpose. The gap here is that there's no permission to use the work in a free software work that is unrelated to APE format playback, encoding, or tagging support. Hence, fails DFSG §3, and possibly §6. 2. Monkey's Audio source can be included in GPL and open-source software, although Monkey's Audio itself will not be subjected to external licensing requirements or other viral source restrictions. This is so ambiguous I can't discern what it's allowing or forbidding. It's not clear whether this permits redistribution, and there's no further permission elsewhere, so I have to asume there's no permission to redistribute. Fails DFSG §3. There is also no permission to redistribute a work under the terms of *this* license. Fails DFSG §3. 3. Code changes and improvements must be contributed back to the Monkey's Audio project free from restrictions or royalties for the sake of the common good, unless exempted by express written consent of the author. Fails the Desert Island test, and possibly the Dissident test, by requiring any redistributor to contact a specific party unrelated to the recipient of the redistributed work. 4. Any source code, ideas, or libraries used must be plainly acknowledged in the software using the code. I can't see how this requirement could ever be met by anyone. Any ... ideas ... used must be plainly acknowledged!? Probably prevents anyone from meeting the license = not useable at all. 5. Although the software has been tested thoroughly, the author is in no way responsible for damages due to bugs or misuse. Disclaimer of warranty = fine, though perhaps overreaching what can actually be disclaimed. 6. If you do not completely agree with all of the previous stipulations, you must cease using this source code and remove it from your storage device. Goes beyond what copyright actually allows the holder to require; only acts of copying and redistribution are within the purview of copyright, so the holder can't demand that you remove the copy already received. Anything that pretends to be an agreement, that must be agreed to before *using* the source code, renders the work non-free. All rights not expressly granted here are reserved by Matthew T. Ashland. - All materials and programs copyrighted ©2000-2006 by Matthew T. Ashland - - All rights reserved. - It's not clear where the license ends; All rights reserved is in conflict with all the other grants of permission in the license, so should be removed. = Conclusion: This appears to be yet another invent-a-license with many ambiguities and lawyerbombs. The author would be well advised to simply license their works under an existing, well-understood and peer-reviewed free software license instead. -- \ I object to doing things that computers can do. —Olin | `\ Shivers | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trademark scope (just for the record)
Rick, On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 08:25:30AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: See http://bugs.debian.org/354622 for the full story. Sorry I didn't include that link before, I was lazy. As usual for trademark claims, the complainer greatly overstates the rights actually available to trademark owners[1]. Briefly stated, establishing a valid trademark entitles you to prohibit others in your same trade or profession from offering competing commercial goods or services[2] using your mark in a way likely to confuse your customers into thinking you have produced or endorsed the competing goods or services. All other uses of the mark are automatically lawful.[3] I don't think that Debian disagrees with this, so I'm not sure why you seem to have reached the opposite conclusion (your implicit point seems to be that Debian is ok to ship its browser as firefox without permission of Mozilla). Perhaps you don't understand that it's our position that Debian and its derivers need to have the freedom to make modifications to the browser without being obligated to either get prior approval from Mozilla Corp. for each change, or rip out the trademarks and/or rename the packages and/or update all marketing materials that might mention the browser? Even if we were shipping a browser package today that was the same as the upstream product (which we aren't, because of the logo change if nothing else), it's entirely possible that in the future we would be shipping a browser functionally different from the upstream one, so it's not obvious to me that labelling such a browser firefox without qualifications would be acceptable nominative use of the trademark. Or perhaps you are assuming that all uses of Debian are non-commercial in nature, and therefore not subject to trademark law? I don't think this is correct either; Debian itself is non-commercial, but there are plenty of folks who distribute Debian or a derivative thereof commercially, and I think it's not unlikely for such distributors to advertise their product in terms of the applications it contains -- and if they were to say includes Mozilla Firefox, that would run afoul of the trademark because what it contains is /not/ Mozilla Firefox, it's a modified version of firefox that Mozilla Corp. doesn't want labelled with their trademark. Finally, even if both of the above were negligible, there's still the simple fact that it's not really worth our bother to have it out with Mozilla Corp over this issue. Given the ridiculous lies that have been spouted by some in the Mozilla camp about Debian's handling of trademark issue, I can only imagine the crap we would have had to endure if we had disputed the legitimacy of their trademark claim. Honestly, if that's how Mozilla is going to treat folks in the Free Software community, is that really a brand we want to be promoting for them anyway? The standard way to disarm any possibility of a valid trademark infringement complaint is to (1) state who owns the trademark, and (2) say that trademark-owning party doesn't produce or endorse one's separate offering. Except that doesn't disarm at all in the specific case of using the trademark to label an offering of your own which is a product in the same field. And open source people fall for it every single time -- but one. I've been on the receiving end of a trademark-related CD before, in relation to an open source reimplementation of a popular board game. The lawyer that the game's creator had retained was, not surprisingly, quite the slimeball and grossly overstated the creator's IP claims in the matter; but the game in question was an innovative one that we enjoyed greatly, and out of a certain sense of indebtedness to the game's creator we graciously agreed to rename the software. And we are still making nominative use of the trademark on the project website, in spite of some of the lawyer's more egregious claims. :) I don't think making a calculated decision about the tradeoffs of disputing someone's trademark claim constitutes falling for it. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:] OSI based its OSD on the DFSG More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote the latter document first, and then copied it wholesale with trivial modifications to create the former (The license instead of The license of a Debian component, and shall not rather than may not, and must not be specific to a product instead of must not be specific to Debian in a couple of items). Later, I believe, there were two other minor divergences: OSI added some additional safeguards to those of DFSG#2 about separately available source code, taken primarily from the text of GPLv2. And, in reaction to proposals of clickwrap software licences, OSI added the OSD#10 requirement (licence must be technology-neutral). (Incidentally, Debian should consider updating DFSG to incorporate wording similar to that of OSD#10.) ...but treats it as a *definition*, that is to say, a set a *rules* whose letter, it seems, must be met, in order for a *license* to be *approved* (OSI-certified) as Open Source. This is true, but please note that approval is not endorsement, and OSI deprecates some because they're dumb in particular ways. Its process for classifying licences into recommended, less recommended, and are you kidding? is slow, on account of bickering from those whose oxen are getting gored (my interpretation, anyway). However OSI has begun to interpret the OSD in such a relaxed way, that it seems almost any license even vaguely resembling something acceptable gets approved, sooner or later... I strongly dispute your assertion, having been active on OSI's license-discuss mailing list for years and participated in pretty much every evaluation there (while having been mostly a lurker here). Would you mind please citing a few examples? IMHO, the term Open Source has gradually become totally meaningless, because of this we-certify-everything attitude of OSI I know of not even one example of same. To the contrary, I was one of several license-discuss participants who helped OSI reach consensus to reject MPL 1.1 + Exhibit B badgeware licences, for example. (and, ironically, because of the success that the very term gained: everyone now uses and abuses the term Open Source to mean anything, just since it's a trendy term...). The abuse of the term by, e.g., Centric CRM is surely not OSI's fault. They vocally oppose it, for one thing. And, actually, attempting to do so is starting to emerge as a losing ploy, because it brings bad publicity. -- Cheers,English is essentially a text parser's way of getting Rick Moen faster processors built. [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- John M. Ford, http://ccil.org/~cowan/essential.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
