independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
Hi, I'm searching for sounds to help GNU Freedink project in making new free game data for 'Dink smallwood'. I found this swedish webpage http://www.johannespinter.com/inu/ljudbank.htm , that contains several good sounds that I would like to modify and use. The 'license' is in swedish and doesn't say much: - !!!OBSERVERA!!! Rättigheterna är helt fria på samtliga ljud: Du kan alltså använda dem precis hur mycket du vill i vilka sammanhang som helst utan att behöva fråga om lov eller ha några tillstånd! Känner du att ljuden hjälpt dig på vägen; tacka gärna independent.nu i eftertexterna till din film! -- my translation: ATTENTION!! The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to ask for permission. If you feel that these sounds have helped you then say thanks to 'independent.nu' in the end credits of your film. Do you consider this DFSG compatible? -- Petteri Tolonen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use of Python bindings to GPL library from within non-GPL Python toolkit
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yaroslav Halchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Thank you Anthony for a detailed explanation, but I am still lacking a clear view here since you are talking about mixing-in GPL code within non-GPLed project, and in our case it is not quite the case: ATM all code in our project is non-GPLed, including some code which makes use of external GPL library through python bindings. So, technically speaking we are not mixing the code, and we do not redistribute GPL code within our project (that dependency on GPLed library is optional). But if I get it right -- it doesn't really matter, since GPL doesn't allow external non-GPLed software to use GPLed library (for such scenarios there is LGPL), am I right? If it's external non-GPL, you can't change its licence. So *YOU* *CAN* mix it with both GPL and your own software. But you CAN'T then DISTRIBUTE the result. The GPL says you must distribute the non-GPL code as if it were GPL, but you don't own that code and can't change the licence. So you can't comply with both licences at the same time, so you can't distribute. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
Petteri Tolonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I found this swedish webpage http://www.johannespinter.com/inu/ljudbank.htm , that contains several good sounds that I would like to modify and use. The 'license' is in swedish and doesn't say much: Thanks for posting the entire license text here for us to discuss. - !!!OBSERVERA!!! Rättigheterna är helt fria på samtliga ljud: Du kan alltså använda dem precis hur mycket du vill i vilka sammanhang som helst utan att behöva fråga om lov eller ha några tillstånd! Känner du att ljuden hjälpt dig på vägen; tacka gärna independent.nu i eftertexterna till din film! -- I am not able to read Swedish, so hopefully someone can get another translation to corroborate. (You might like to ask on one of the Debian translation groups for Swedish.) my translation: Thank you. ATTENTION!! The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to ask for permission. Grants only right to use, which is vague but not normally taken to mean more than perform or run; i.e. a read-only use. Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3. If you feel that these sounds have helped you then say thanks to independent.nu' in the end credits of your film. A request, so probably not a restriction on actions. DFSG-neutral. Do you consider this DFSG compatible? Without explicit freedom to derive modified works, and redistribute with or without modification, I'd say this work is not DFSG-free. You might like to advise the upstream to choose a well-known free software license like the Expat license or ISC license, if those have a Swedish translation available. -- \ “Earth gets its price for what Earth gives us.” —James Russell | `\Lowell | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use of Python bindings to GPL library from within non-GPL Python toolkit
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If it's external non-GPL, you can't change its licence. So *YOU* *CAN* mix it with both GPL and your own software. But you CAN'T then DISTRIBUTE the result. The GPL says you must distribute the non-GPL code as if it were GPL Not quite: the GPL says only that you may not impose *additional* restrictions beyond those in the GPL. There are a number of non-GPL licenses that, because their restrictions are a subset of those in the GPL, are thus compatible with the GPL. I believe the original poster spoke of an MIT-style license; this term could refer to any of a number of different licenses, so I'll assume they mean instead terms equivalent to the Expat license. The terms of the Expat license is one example of a license that is not GPL but is GPL-compatible. A work derived both from works licensed GPL and Expat can be redistributed under the GPL. but you don't own that code and can't change the licence. So you can't comply with both licences at the same time, so you can't distribute. If that were true, then it would indeed make the work non-redistributable. If both licenses *can* be satisfied (as in the case of GPL and Expat, by redistributing under the terms of the GPL), then that would be okay. -- \ “About four years ago, I was — no, it was yesterday.” —Steven | `\Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote: ATTENTION!! The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to ask for permission. Grants only right to use, which is vague but not normally taken to mean more than perform or run; i.e. a read-only use. How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this license in your analysis and go straight to a sentence that is nothing more than a description of a single instance of license interpretation? Don't get me wrong, it's not a great license, but you can't just skip over terms to reach a DFSG invalid determination. Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3. Sure it does... it grants all rights there in the first part. We might wish it went about listing what those rights are, but I'm not aware of a requirement that such a description need be provided. You might like to advise the upstream to choose a well-known free software license like the Expat license or ISC license, if those have a Swedish translation available. Always good advice, but I'd still say the license is effectively the same as the Expat... the Expat is just more explicit. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote: ATTENTION!! The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to ask for permission. Grants only right to use, which is vague but not normally taken to mean more than perform or run; i.e. a read-only use. How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this license in your analysis and go straight to a sentence that is nothing more than a description of a single instance of license interpretation? The first sentence is nearly meaningless, and free of content that would help understand precisely what is meant by totally free. Perhaps someone who understands the language in which this license was written could weigh in and change the interpretation, but based on the translation we were given, it is not DFSG free. The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay for these works. Likewise, if use means just perform, then it's totally different from a standin for use in any manner, including but not limited to modifcation, distribution, and performance. Since it's not clear that we've actually been granted the rights that we need, we should in general assume that we haven't. All of that said and done, if the copyright holder actually means for the work to be DFSG free, using a license that is trivially understood to be DFSG free is ideal. Don Armstrong -- Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote: ATTENTION!! The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to ask for permission. Grants only right to use, which is vague but not normally taken to mean more than perform or run; i.e. a read-only use. How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this license in your analysis I didn't skip over it; I'm taking the following this means as an explanation of the intent of that sentence. If the license says foo means bar, I will interpret foo as meaning bar, and try not to bring my own wishful meanings to it. Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3. Sure it does... it grants all rights there in the first part. I disagree; I think the license has told us what it means by that first part, and its stated meaning does *not* include the rights of redistribution and deriving modified works. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, | `\ Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so.” —_Pinky and | _o__) The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay for these works. Given the subsequent This means [use for any purpose] language, I think free as in beer is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation of that). Likewise, if use means just perform, then it's totally different from a standin for use in any manner, including but not limited to modifcation, distribution, and performance. I'll also point out that there is massive precedent for artists to find the idea of granting rights to derive modified works and redistribute to be quite alien. It's not uncommon to hear the same arguments against freedom presented anew from such people that were discarded a decade ago in the field of programming. So, I would *not* assume that the DFSG freedoms are implied in a statement of totally free from a statement not already known to have that meaning. Since it's not clear that we've actually been granted the rights that we need, we should in general assume that we haven't. Agreed. All of that said and done, if the copyright holder actually means for the work to be DFSG free, using a license that is trivially understood to be DFSG free is ideal. Yes. Perhaps the original poster can communicate this upstream? -- \ “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.” | `\ —Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay for these works. Given the subsequent This means [use for any purpose] language, I think free as in beer is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation of that). The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any information as to what the underlying words that were translated actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages. Don Armstrong -- EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise when you step right up to a urinal and use it with a smile. Get Dr. Mary Evers' EQUAL-NOW Adapter (pat. appld. for) -- purse size, fool proof, sanitary -- comes in nine lovely, feminine, psychedelic patterns -- requires no fitting, no prescriptions. -- Robert A Heinlein _I Will Fear No Evil_ p470. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:34:33 pm Ben Finney wrote: Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote: ATTENTION!! The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to ask for permission. Grants only right to use, which is vague but not normally taken to mean more than perform or run; i.e. a read-only use. How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this license in your analysis I didn't skip over it; I'm taking the following this means as an explanation of the intent of that sentence. If the license says foo means bar, I will interpret foo as meaning bar, and try not to bring my own wishful meanings to it. If we are going to apply a technical reading to an obviously non-technically drafted license (which judges don't do) then let's observe the fact that the second sentence does not contain any indication that it is an exclusive definition of what the preceding sentence means. There is no need to bring wishful meanings, just a dash of common sense. Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3. Sure it does... it grants all rights there in the first part. I disagree; I think the license has told us what it means by that first part, and its stated meaning does *not* include the rights of redistribution and deriving modified works. What part of any context you like fails to make it clear that redistribution and derivative works are covered by the already very liberal terms of the first sentence? -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:54:02 pm Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay for these works. Given the subsequent This means [use for any purpose] language, I think free as in beer is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation of that). The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any information as to what the underlying words that were translated actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages. Which is certainly a fair point... but I'm thinking the initial poster is a native speaker, and isn't going to insert terms like rights into sentences that is talking about costs. That's a fairly outstanding translation mistake. Also, that second sentence would have to be essentially made-up if the first sentence is really talking about money. Yes, the English language has its ambiguities, but a little attention to context is adequate in most situations. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:54:02 pm Don Armstrong wrote: The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any information as to what the underlying words that were translated actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages. Which is certainly a fair point... but I'm thinking the initial poster is a native speaker, and isn't going to insert terms like rights into sentences that is talking about costs. A right to use a copyrighted work traditionally involves cost; these are not orthogonal concepts. Also, that second sentence would have to be essentially made-up if the first sentence is really talking about money. It's possible to interpret it in an entirely consistent manner if it's just refering to performance and not modification. It wouldn't be the first time that someone used two sentences to amplify or expand the point that they are making in the first. For example, I'm going to do so right here. Don Armstrong -- You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember when you are old. -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p413) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
