Re: [Pkg-net-snmp-devel] Bug#498475: Lenny-Ignore tag request for SNMP related bugs
The MIBs are not technically necessary for the SNMP protocol itself to work. In fact, most of the SNMP agent's functionality is just fine without installed MIBs. The command line clients, however, are far less useful (still usable, but much more of a pain for the operator). If you want to get really nasty about the legal issues, consider the following snippit from RFC3414 (picking one at random, since they all have this issue): usmStatsWrongDigests OBJECT-TYPE Blumenthal & Wijnen Standards Track[Page 38] ^L RFC 3414 USM for SNMPv3December 2002 SYNTAX Counter32 MAX-ACCESS read-only Note how the RFC format inserts headings within the MIB itself. It's unclear to me, from a perfectly legal definition, if the copyright on the "MIB" includes the page break markings. I'll let a lawyer answer that additional problem... Anyway, there is one other solution: Distribute the snmp packages without any MIBs in place but with a auto-post-installation tool that could go grab all the RFCs, extract the MIBs, modify them so they're not broken and then install them on the system. That only removes the "free" problem aspect from the distribution itself and leaves it up to the user whether to run the post-installation tool to make the tools significantly more usable but reduce the "freeness" of the system (and you could even print a nice friendly warning). The crux of the problem is there is nothing you can do to fix it because the problem stems from far upstream (the IETF Trust), which is beyond the bounds of anything any of us control. Maybe your lawyer should talk to their lawyer and beg for a solution and explain the problem. (it's actually been discussed in the past surrounding code-snippits in various RFCs that are indented to be used by the author, but the IETF stamps it with a less-usable license). -- "In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap, and much more difficult to find." -- Terry Pratchett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/15 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only >> the >> binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) >> is a >> rectriction? > > I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of the license. If there > are remaining questions, they should be asked. > > We've come to a point where our varying beliefs across a spectrum from > anti-copyleft to strong copyleft are being voiced. This is what I have > written earlier in this thread in degrading into personal opinions rather > than arguing DFSG-freeness. I agree. I think all the points of view have been expressed, and there is no reason to keep repeating all of them over and over again [1] > The issue of whether the AGPLv3 should be used is moot here. It is being > used, it's popularity is growing, and Debian users are choosing to use > AGPLv3 software regardless of whether it's packaged or how it's labeled. > The only issue at hand is whether the Debian project is going to behave in a > combative manner against these projects in labeling them as "non-free" or > accept them as part of the body of free software. That's not exactly a reason. Many Debian users are using flashplugin-nonfree [2] and that doesn't make it free. non-free does not have to mean bad or good, or that Debian is combative against it. It just describes whether it fulfills or not the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Greetings, Miry [1] http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/03/21/charles_rules_of_argument/ [2] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=flashplugin-nonfree -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only > the > binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is > a > rectriction? I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of the license. If there are remaining questions, they should be asked. We've come to a point where our varying beliefs across a spectrum from anti-copyleft to strong copyleft are being voiced. This is what I have written earlier in this thread in degrading into personal opinions rather than arguing DFSG-freeness. The issue of whether the AGPLv3 should be used is moot here. It is being used, it's popularity is growing, and Debian users are choosing to use AGPLv3 software regardless of whether it's packaged or how it's labeled. The only issue at hand is whether the Debian project is going to behave in a combative manner against these projects in labeling them as "non-free" or accept them as part of the body of free software.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Bernhard R. Link wrote: > Is it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run > modified services secretly is a restriction? Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only the binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is a rectriction? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
* Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080915 18:25]: > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > >> I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged > >> on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred > >> onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code > >> hosting sites. > Alright, let me see the objections in that message... So, because noone changed your opinion on the matter, your opinion has "no been challenged"? Is it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run modified services secretly is a restriction? That having to make sure something can be downloaded from somewhere means costs? (And that enumerating services offering such a service without payment for another mean without any guarantee does not mean it has no costs?) Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-net-snmp-devel] Bug#498475: Lenny-Ignore tag request for SNMP related bugs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Vincent, > I have just opened two bugs against libsmi-common and libsnmp-base: > http://bugs.debian.org/498476 > http://bugs.debian.org/498475 > > Those packages ship MIB files that are non-free (same license as IETF > RFC). However, there is no quick fix: removing those files make the > packages unusable, moving to non-free make a lot of important package > (snmpd) move to contrib, etc. > > I think we should fix this issue after Lenny. Therefore, I would like to > tag those bugs with lenny-ignore. IMHO things are even worse. Looking at the MIB License at http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html, it appears to me that any modification of the MIBs is prohibited, including fixing syntactic errors. On the other hand, net-snmp-5.4.1/mibs/Makefile.mib which can be used to refresh the included MIB file applies a patch to the dowloaded MIBs which fixes those errors. Wouldn't this even make distributing libsnmp-base in non-free problematic? Thanks, Jochen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEVAwUBSM6bBcP9a9GOLSE6AQJEKAf/b3vl6nMuFy3wd9DVKt3pn+bW+hxjcIZC 1nRYv5xQLStXkDd3IpP7CSMz3ANTzj5oqtmmxwtSWbZzmzAUedCkUES71gEpO49D gAFl2BBlS+jFFyugPVet/13NTJm5xFR7A7CfGlLmnC0BS0BzPLu+XnYZ+DzUXLos Tvb+Gh18+iUCNYZNkLy/7uitXDMzUAAYB9GmWa/26LSHEmkulepSrwfadd1Fep9T 8Wi9gToLs0XNMrqze8N9ZAuGur9O1xcz4OPBosTab1ppzSDecOBBP0/GtIfum/Sp 7lzbrjcDWP9OfIwCihZuD+LcPH1H+BIcu+N6qRA3zlwFqLQyIxPRaw== =bq65 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/13 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged >> on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred >> onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code >> hosting sites. > > I think this thread already saw more than one explanation of why this > is not necessarily possible. For instance: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/09/msg00016.html Alright, let me see the objections in that message... On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 05:39:59 -0400 Daniel Dickinson wrote: > * if the application runs on a resource-limited server (think about > a small embedded system...), I cannot use the same host So? Put it up in Sourceforge or another server. What's the big deal about using another server? The indefinite article "a" in the AGPL clearly allows this. > * if I don't want to publish the application (but only distribute it > to my users), I cannot use a public hosting service Sure you can, just use an authentication system. There are many public hosting services that allow you to enforce an authentication system. > * if I cannot afford the costs of ensuring it is available as long as > the application runs, I cannot use another host owned or hired by me Againt, those costs can be transferred to other agents for whom the cost is presumably negligible. 2008/9/13 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> The protests I have heard on this point is that perhaps >> transferring these costs to third parties is not effective for various >> reasons (anonymity and whatnot). > > The issue is not anonymity: the issue is that I could want to avoid > making the application public (and only distribute it to my remote > users). Again, see the above-cited message. An authentication system seems to fix this (and I guess your next objection will be some weird hypothetical and unlikely case where an authentication system is technically difficult). > > [...] >> > and additional cost of maintaining those modifications over >> > time. >> >> For instances where the maintenance could be cumbersome, I think the >> alternative methods of providing source, such as all at once when you >> first transfer the software, could be effective. > > Suppose I never first transfered the software: I just run the > application on my server. Your alternative method does not apply. That's true, but you received the AGPLed software somehow in the first place. Perhaps it's not fair of me to assume that if you were able to receive the software, you cannot use the same symmetrical method to distribute your modified source. But again, I have difficulty envisioning a system where you're able to run a server that everyone in the world can use to interface to but you cannot provide code to anyone who uses this globally-available code. > I hope you are not arguing that forcing me to implement http/ftp > support complies with the DFSG... No need for you to implement it, Sourceforge et al have already implemented it for your benefit. > >> I have a hard time >> imagining such a situation, so I don't think I fully understand the >> impact of this protest against the AGPL. The cases of when the user is >> given a device that has a local network interface can be solved by >> giving the user the source on a separate medium when given the device; >> this seems like a negligible cost too. > > Suppose I am not giving any physical device to anyone. > My (modified) application runs on a small resource-limited server, > talks a very simple network protocol (with no http/ftp support) and > has remote users on the other side of an ocean... > I don't think this is a particularly far-fetched example. I do. Provide more details to make it plausible. > And anyway, a work cannot claim to be Free Software, while forbidding > some scenarios just because they are "weird". Yes you can. Suppose aliens invade the Earth, closely monitor all network traffic as well as sneakernet and instantly destroy anyone who attempts to distribute source, but allow distribution of binaries. Oh no! You cannot comply with the GPL anymore without being vapourised! Clearly the GPL is non-free in this scenario. >> > That's before we even get to the question of whether the AGPL allows >> > the corresponding source to be unavailable at a given point in time >> > when an person who interacts with the program at time T and then at >> > time T+X requests the corresponding source. >> >> I am not sure. It might. The "opportunity to receive the Corresponding >> Source" might be an opportunity in the future. To sue, you would >> probably have to convince a judge that you were never given an >> opportunity at all. > > An opportunity in the future? > Like "click here, and wait for some 10 or 20 years, to get source" ? Whatever a judge or local law interpreter deem
Re: Licence query
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The first "it" is clearly referring to the unmodified source. The > second "it" has no other noun to refer to [...] No noun except the altered source, the outcome of the first action? Compare: if I say "This box: I'll wrap it and post it to you" then I mean I'm going to post the wrapped box - not that I'm going to wrap it, then unwrap it again and post just the box! I've no reason to think the licensor is an evil language-buggerer, so I feel we should think this meets DFSG. If a licensor tries to claim that the second pronoun ignores the first action, then we should remove their package and plead that it was an honest misunderstanding. 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]
Spezialaktion Handbuch Gesundheitswesen Schweiz im Umbruch (Dr. Willy Oggier et. al)
Guten Tag Wir möchten Sie gerne auf folgende Spezialaktion im Rahmen des 8. Schweizerischen eHealthcare Kongresses aufmerksam machen: Zu jedem Handbuch kostenlos Ihr Werkzeug zum Umbruch! 1 Victorinox Sackmesser mit USB Stick (4GB). Das interdisziplinäre Handbuch mit der prozess- und praxisorientierten Sichtweise Erstmalig formuliert eine Fachpublikation den anstehenden Veränderungsprozess der nächsten Jahre detailliert. Praxisbezug und Anwendbarkeit stehen dabei stets im Mittelpunkt. Über 40 namhafte Autoren beantworten folgende Fragen: Wie ist das Gesundheitswesen strukturiert, aufgebaut und finanziert? Wie sehen die Prozesse im Gesundheitswesen im Einzelnen aus? Welches sind die massgeblichen Veränderungskräfte? Was sind die Auswirkungen der Veränderungen auf Strategie und Kernprozesse der Spitäler, Leistungserbringer, Krankenversicherer und der Industrie? --- Handbuch Gesundheitswesen Schweiz im Umbruch Herausgegeben von Willy Oggier, Andreas Walter, Serge Reichlin und Michael Egli 2008, 512 Seiten, Sammelordner. Fr. 299.– (inkl. MwSt., exkl. Versand) ISBN 978-3-9522579-5-1 Versandpartner: www.soziothek.ch Nähere Informationen sowie das Inhalts- und Autorenverzeichnis finden Sie unter: www.ehealthcare.ch --- „Ich danke den Herausgebern dieses Buches, dass Sie uns eine Gesamtsicht über den uns bevorstehenden Umbruch im Gesundheitswesen darlegen. Diese Beiträge werden als wichtige Grundlage für die weiteren Diskussionen dienen.“ Regierungsrat Dr. Carlo Conti, Vorsteher Gesundheitsdepartement Basel-Stadt (Auszug aus dem Vorwort) "Ein ausgezeichneter Tiefblick in das Gesundheitswesen. Mit einer verständlichen Darstellung der Prozesse und der kommenden Veränderungen. Besten Dank". Beat Huber, Direktor Klinik Pyramide, Präsident Swiss Leading Hospitals "Ich bin erfreut, wie unabhängig und objektiv die Autoren berichten. Ich gratuliere zur Publikation". Markus Lämmler, Key Account Manager, IMS Health GmbH "Das Handbuch ist jederzeit schnell griffbereit in meinem Büro. Alle Kapitel sind sehr fundiert". Richard Heldman, Pharma Relations Manager, MediService AG. -- Impressum: eHealthCare.ch Kongress Kompendium Campus Services, TREND CARE AG, Bahnhofstrasse 40, 6210 Sursee Tel.: +41 41 925 76 89 Fax: +41 41 925 76 80 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ehealthcare.ch Zum Abmelden klicken Sie bitte hier : http://004.frnl.de/box.php?funcml=unsub2&nl=764&mi=1562&email=debian-legal%40lists.debian.org
