Re: Which license am I looking for?
Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:16 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: Thanks for your reply. You're welcome! :) On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft licenses and still have a copyleft license... I think these two requirements are _very_ hard to satisfy at the same time; it could be that they are actually incompatible with each other. Maybe something like copyleft-ed BSD license. Eg. standard two clauses, and an additional clause about enforcing source redistribution of your software even if it is part of a larger project (open-sourced or not). [...] The GNU GPL is not far from being such a license: it talks all the way about a Program, but defines this term as any program or other work (GPLv2, Section 0.) or as any copyrightable work (GPLv3, Section 0.). Hence you may think Work whenever you read Program in the GPL text. Didn't know that. I thought the whole push for Artistic and CC licenses were that all the other licenses (including GPL) were all about software. [...] Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 09:26:20AM +, Дмитрий Ледков wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft licenses and still have a copyleft license... I think these two requirements are _very_ hard to satisfy at the same time; it could be that they are actually incompatible with each other. Maybe something like copyleft-ed BSD license. Eg. standard two clauses, and an additional clause about enforcing source redistribution of your software even if it is part of a larger project (open-sourced or not). I would prefer not to add to license proliferation. In case I have to, I currently favor something based on OSL. The reason being, that I am not skilled enough to formulate additional clauses, whereas removing some is not so hard. Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? My understanding of Francesco's disclaimers: IANAL: I am not a lawyer TINLA: This is not law advice IANADD: I am not a Debian Developer TINASOTODP: This is not a (something) of the official Debian project I might be wrong, though. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Дмитрий Ледков dmitrij.led...@gmail.com writes: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? For reasons I've never seen adequately explained, some people feel the need to periodically chastise Francesco for giving opinions and analyses without explicating every single time that “I Am Not A Lawyer”, “This Is Not Legal Advice”, “I Am Not A Debian Developer”, “This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position”. He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed at him in particular. Myself, I think it's ludicrous for others to expect one's every opinion to be couched in such stuff, and I just say what I have to say, with whatever justification I have for it, and people can judge that on its merits. There are too many disclaimers and warning labels in our lives as it is. -- \ “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his | `\ salary depends upon his not understanding it.” —Upton Sinclair, | _o__) 1935 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
* Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090119 01:58]: Having said all that, the meaning of this paragraph -- to me, at least -- is straight forward. It says that the U.S. Government, having decided to deny itself a copyright in the U.S., does not preclude itself from accepting a copyright from a different jurisdiction. If the Canadians wish to grant U.S. Governments works a copyright, then § 105 doesn't stop that. Nor does it stop the U.S. Government from enforcing such a copyright once it is issued. What it *doesn't* say is that a foreign government is required to grant a copyright. It's up to them... if they do, then the U.S. will take it... if they don't, not a big deal. So I think that alone is like having one country where copyright ends say 5 years after the death of the author. If we have some software from an author in this country that dies 6 years ago, it will be public domain there, but if I am not mistaken it will not be public domain in the rest of the world. Now, I will admit I am not a Berne Convention expert... but I was under the impression that a big part of that convention was the idea of reciprocity. A member nation is obligated to provide coyright protection domestically IF the author's home nation provides protection. Put another way, a foreign nation has no obligation to provide protection if the home nation does NOT provide protection. Which, to me at least, means a foreign government is under no obligation to protect U.S. government works. But, like I said before, it's really a matter of local jurisdiction. I think the appropiate paragraphs are those: (§122 UrHG): | (3) Der Schutz nach Absatz 1 kann durch Rechtsverordnung des | Bundesministers der Justiz für ausländische Staatsangehörige | beschränkt werden, die keinem Mitgliedstaat der Berner Übereinkunft | zum Schutze von Werken der Literatur und der Kunst angehören und zur | Zeit des Erscheinens des Werkes weder im Geltungsbereich dieses | Gesetzes noch in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat ihren Wohnsitz haben, | wenn der Staat, dem sie angehören, deutschen Staatsangehörigen für | ihre Werke keinen genügenden Schutz gewährt. This (I think it is about works originally published in Germany by someone not German or EU citizen) says that the interior ministry can waive the rights of citizens of non-berne-convention members that do no live in Germany and their state does not protect the works of Germans. | (4) Im übrigen genießen ausländische Staatsangehörige den | urheberrechtlichen Schutz nach Inhalt der Staatsverträge. Bestehen | keine Staatsverträge, so besteht für solche Werke urheberrechtlicher | Schutz, soweit in dem Staat, dem der Urheber angehört, nach einer | Bekanntmachung des Bundesministers der Justiz im Bundesgesetzblatt | deutsche Staatsangehörige für ihre Werke einen entsprechenden Schutz | genießen. As I as non-lawyer read them, they says that the state can make treaties with other states about what copyright is given to members of the other state. If there is no treaty with a state, then its citizens are given the same rights as Germans are given when the ministry of justice announced that their country protects the copyright of German citizens. I.e. the reciprocity is if you give my citizens copyright, I give it to yours. I from what I remember to have read, it is quite common that the rules of the local state apply and not the rules of the state of the author. (At least I remember that the end of copyright of a work differs for the same work even between the countries with Anglo-Saxon law systems). I'm even less able to read english law texts, but 159 of British Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says: | (1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for applying in | relation to a country to which this Part does not extend any of the | provisions of this Part specified in the Order, so as to secure that | those provisions-- | (a) apply in relation to persons who are citizens or subjects of that | country or are domiciled or resident there, as they apply to persons | who are British citizens or are domiciled or resident in the United | Kingdom, or and later | (3) Except in the case of a Convention country or another member State | of the European Economic Community, Her Majesty shall not make an | Order in Council under this section in relation to a country unless | satisfied that provision has been or will be made under the law of | that country, in respect of the class of works to which the Order | relates, giving adequate protection to the owners of copyright under | this Part. Which I also read as copyright for all works of this class here under our rules, as far as the home state of the copyright holder would also protect this class of works. And I think with class of works it means classes like texts, paintings, radio broadcasts, software, ... and not classes like made as work for the government. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:03:32 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: Дмитрий Ледков writes: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? For reasons I've never seen adequately explained, some people feel the need to periodically chastise Francesco for giving opinions and analyses without explicating every single time that “I Am Not A Lawyer”, “This Is Not Legal Advice”, “I Am Not A Debian Developer”, “This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position”. He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed at him in particular. Exactly, I could not explain it better. Thank you very much for clarifying! :-) -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpJlxT4jZ5qK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Monday 19 January 2009 02:03:32 am Ben Finney wrote: Дмитрий Ледков dmitrij.led...@gmail.com writes: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? For reasons I've never seen adequately explained, some people feel the need to periodically chastise Francesco for giving opinions and analyses without explicating every single time that “I Am Not A Lawyer”, “This Is Not Legal Advice”, “I Am Not A Debian Developer”, “This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position”. He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed at him in particular. Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. The long of the short of it being... be careful how specific you are with legal stuff in all settings. The closer you get to a specific set of facts, the closer you get to giving advice, the more liability you expose yourself to. This has been a public service announcement. Feel free to search on the archives for a lot more, from me, about this very topic, as I make this same little speach everytime someone makes claims about disclaimers :) -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
In message 20090119110756.ga18...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes * Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090119 01:58]: Having said all that, the meaning of this paragraph -- to me, at least -- is straight forward. It says that the U.S. Government, having decided to deny itself a copyright in the U.S., does not preclude itself from accepting a copyright from a different jurisdiction. If the Canadians wish to grant U.S. Governments works a copyright, then § 105 doesn't stop that. Nor does it stop the U.S. Government from enforcing such a copyright once it is issued. What it *doesn't* say is that a foreign government is required to grant a copyright. It's up to them... if they do, then the U.S. will take it... if they don't, not a big deal. So I think that alone is like having one country where copyright ends say 5 years after the death of the author. If we have some software from an author in this country that dies 6 years ago, it will be public domain there, but if I am not mistaken it will not be public domain in the rest of the world. That's what I understood. I thought it was equality of treatment, not reciprocity. Corporate works in the US have (I believe) a lifetime of 95 years. In Europe it's 50 or 70 (probably 70). So, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, it is quite possible for a US work to be copyright in the US but public domain in Europe, if it's between 70 and 95 years old. Equality says if a European company could sue in Europe, then an American company must be able to also. If the European company can't sue, then neither can an American company in like circumstances. Actually, that also means a European-created work can be copyright in the US after the European copyright has expired ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) I am... is this a problem? Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). I'm not entirely certain why the fact that the list is international means anything? The individuals who participate live *somewhere* and the laws of those somewheres apply. Everyone who participates on this list subjects themselves, in part, to the laws of those they reply to. Yes, there are jurisdictional issues, but that's different from the law itself. No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as irrelevant... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. Not entirely certain what an Italian court would make of the claim of violating U.S. laws on the subject. He might get of free; I don't think it would be pretty. But, by all means, stick your head in the ground and complain about American parochialism, it's realy no skin off my knees. Incedently, as far as I can tell, the UK doesn't have the same sort of blanked practice requirement as the United States does, but it does have some areas of law that require you to certified as one of four different types of legal professionals. I didn't bother to look it up, because I don't honestly care -- whatever it is, it's going to be less strict than the rules I must follow -- but perhaps you might want to look it up, since you are so certain my suggestion about legal advice does not apply to you. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Licensing debian/*
Dear debian-legal I have a few questions about licensing debian/* The proposed copyright format and policy suggest that the packaging data should be licensed. And that has raised a few questions for the trivial package I'm working on. 1) What is the recommended license? Public domain? Considering derivatives such is the one based on opensolaris (Nexetra?) 2) Can licensing debian/* lead to license incompatability of the final .deb? 3) Shall I mention copyright of the previous maintainer? (Even if everything in debian/* was removed and created from scratch) 4) What to do if the current licencing of debian/* is unknown? (Maintainer gone MIA)? Shall I assume complies with GPL unless proven otherwise (a pun =) ) Thank you all in advance. -- With regards, Dmitrijs Ledkovs. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Licensing debian/*
Дмитрий Ледков dmitrij.led...@gmail.com writes: I have a few questions about licensing debian/* The proposed copyright format and policy suggest that the packaging data should be licensed. Like any other intellectual work expressed in some form, with very few exceptions. And that has raised a few questions for the trivial package I'm working on. 1) What is the recommended license? Public domain? Considering derivatives such is the one based on opensolaris (Nexetra?) For simplicity, and only considering free software: license the ‘debian/’ directory under the same terms as the aggregate license for the package. For cases where there is something significant in ‘debian/’ that I would prefer under a different license (in my case, usually GPL): license it under those terms. 2) Can licensing debian/* lead to license incompatability of the final .deb? The legal issues would be the same as for any other mixed-license work, with the same questions applying. Unless the ‘debian/*’ files and the package's files can somehow be construed as interacting via copyright (e.g. one is a derivative work of the other), I would think the only consideration is whether they can all be distributed DFSG free. 3) Shall I mention copyright of the previous maintainer? (Even if everything in debian/* was removed and created from scratch) That all depends on how likely it is that your work is construable as a “derived work” of the previous one. Even if you removed it all and did it all from scratch, is it true that your work is not derived from the preceding work? 4) What to do if the current licencing of debian/* is unknown? (Maintainer gone MIA)? Same as for any other copyright-status-unknown work: try hard to get a license, either from existing information somewhere, or from contacting the copyright holder. Shall I assume complies with GPL unless proven otherwise (a pun =) No, consensus seems to be to assume *no license at all* (that is, no grant of permission at all for the work) in the absence of a clear license grant. That doesn't change just because the work is in a ‘debian/’ directory. -- \“I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because | `\that means it's gonna be up all night.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Sean Kellogg wrote: On Monday 19 January 2009 02:03:32 am Ben Finney wrote: He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed at him in particular. Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. That might cover the TINLA, but that's only one of them. AFAICS Francesco has taken to adding his disclaimers after being criticised for posting responses to -legal queries that might otherwise have been mistaken as opinions of a DD, or even the Debian project as a whole. As he is neither, the disclaimers may have a useful effect; they might have even more if they were spelled out fully. It's unfortunate that there is such a disconnect between the the talking heads on -legal and the DDs actually working on Debian. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com liw everything I know about UK hotels I learned from Fawlty Towers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
