Re: distributing precompiled binaries
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [090328 23:46]: And this has all been discussed before. Obviously not often enough for you. Also, a PDF is a program for a certain type of interpreter. A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the preferred format for modification of *documentation*, not a program. There's no reason to expect that two different versions of mumble2pdf are going to output two *programs* that resemble one another in the slightest This is no different to a compiled binary. It's just another computer-readable translation, which a human can also treat as such, such a very inconvenient one. And while different compilations of a program are in practise very similar, the only thing one can expect is that they produce binary that do the same thing (and even that is often not true). - only that they output the same documentation. I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to hard to change to call it free. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes: * Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [090328 23:46]: A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the preferred format for modification of *documentation*, not a program. There's no reason to expect that two different versions of mumble2pdf are going to output two *programs* that resemble one another in the slightest This is no different to a compiled binary. It's just another computer-readable translation, which a human can also treat as such, such a very inconvenient one. And while different compilations of a program are in practise very similar, the only thing one can expect is that they produce binary that do the same thing (and even that is often not true). Moreover, those that want to have different freedoms for users of different types of software — documentation, programs, images, etc. — still have all their arguing ahead of them. The *default* position should be that all users get the same freedoms; restrictions for some types of software, that don't apply to others, need to be justified explicitly. That's quite apart from the practical matters of even reliably *distinguishing* different types of bit streams from each other in order to figure out which rules apply: e.g. if the software is a PDF, it is both documentation *and* program. -- \ “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more | `\ to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a | _o__) sober one.” —George Bernard Shaw | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? Stay with 1.1 or later. Basically, unless YOU have the right to RElicence, you can't change the licence. And I doubt you have that right. The licensor has given you the right to use it under a later licence. But unless they gave you the right to CHANGE the licence (which I doubt) then you don't have the right to take 1.1 away. I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't have to redistribute it (or any work based on it) under all of those licenses. That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. Whether or not that's a good idea is a different matter. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
In message 20090329090239.gw7...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't have to redistribute it (or any work based on it) under all of those licenses. That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. In which case, you are NOT distributing the ORIGINAL work, but a derived work, because you've changed it. If it's an unchanged work, legally, you are using the 1.2 licence to distribute it, but you cannot change the licence the copyright holder originally granted. Note the wording in the GPL - the recipient gets a licence from the ORIGINAL licensor - if they gave 1.1 or later then that's what the recipient gets, regardless of whether you distributed under 1.1 or 1.2. The ONLY way you can actually *change* the licence is if you add code that is, let's say, 1.2 only. At which point the combined work becomes 1.2. A choice of licence only gives YOU the right to choose which licence applies to YOU. It does not give you the right to change the licences the recipient can choose from (unless, as I said, you create a derived work, in which case the recipient has to choose a licence that is compatible with your licence for the stuff for which you hold the copyright, and the other stuff you don't hold the copyright for). 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: distributing precompiled binaries
In message 20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes - only that they output the same documentation. I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to hard to change to call it free. Would you call a Word document a good enough source? After all, it requires a proprietary program to process it properly! :-) imho, the difference between plain text and a plain pdf is minimal. If, however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ... 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: distributing precompiled binaries
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:02:07 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: [...] imho, the difference between plain text and a plain pdf is minimal. If, however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ... Please reconsider your claim after thinking about typesetting, formatting, mathematical formulas, pictures, footnotes, headers/footers, internal and external links, and so forth... For instance, for a PDF file generated from LaTeX, I would certainly say that the PDF format is not source form at all. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpkcCtwhhe6C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 11:02 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes - only that they output the same documentation. I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to hard to change to call it free. Would you call a Word document a good enough source? After all, it requires a proprietary program to process it properly! :-) No, OO.o is free. imho, the difference between plain text and a plain pdf is minimal. If, however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ... -- Chow Loong Jin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
2009/3/28 Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org: I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? The license's version is 1.1, so I think that you have to point to that referred version. I think that, as the copyight holder says version X or (at your choice) any later version, you are allowed (by exercising that choice) to change that X (in this case X == 1.1) for any X' value equal or higher than the original X (in this case, X' = 1.1). I think I read something similar to that it somewhere in the FSF site. However, I just did a quick search I couldn't find the specific page. If you do find it, please send the link to the list. Cheers, L -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:57:49 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] I found gnapplet with sources in the contrib bit of the gammu tree. https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gammu;ver=1.23.1-2;arch=i386;stamp=1236036416 doesn't seem to mention it being rebuilt. Can it not be rebuilt from those sources alone? [...] It seems to me that bug #521448 is an attempt to report this [...] I am not sure whether the bug should be reopened or maybe another bug report should be filed against gammu. What do others think? Reopen and retitle? As I understand policy 2.2.2, the gammu applet is almost exactly the example of free packages which require [...] packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution at the moment. Minor but essential. 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: [...] A recent (Dec 2008) addition with no grounding in the DFSG. If I see PDFs being rejected with this rationale when it's not a question of license compliance (PDFs distributed under the GPL certainly have to have source with them, but that's not a DFSG matter), I certainly intend to dispute it. I disagree, seeing PDFs as being like intermediate code rather than source code, but both gammu and remuco claim to be under the GPL, so require good source for their applets, so let's not have this debate here now. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. Could you please elaborate on this? 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's complete source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and assuming that an appropriate copyright notice does identify their use of FLTK sufficiently. This then permeates the rest of the licence and the additional permission to use section 6 without having to pass on the licence doesn't change that requirement. Hope that's right, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:33:59 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] It seems to me that bug #521448 is an attempt to report this [...] I am not sure whether the bug should be reopened or maybe another bug report should be filed against gammu. What do others think? Reopen and retitle? As I understand policy 2.2.2, the gammu applet is almost exactly the example of free packages which require [...] packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution at the moment. Minor but essential. Could you please do that? I think you investigated the issue far more than I have personally done, hence I think you could better explain the problem, and point to the relevant files, and so forth... -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp8hYQ2f4mVH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org asked: was the EUPL[1] previously reviewed already? I found this answer at http://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/search?query=eupl+draft It appears to have a shed-load of problems, but the EUPL is trivially upgradable to a number of good free software licences (section 5 and appendix), so what's the point in reviewing this EU-funded waste of brainpower? 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote in message news:49c8da6f.7050...@debian.org... 4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor do you have to identify the FLTK license in your program or documentation as required by section 6 of the LGPL. However, programs must still identify their use of FLTK. The following example statement can be included in user documentation to satisfy this requirement: [program/widget] is based in part on the work of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). The December version has the above statement. The inclusion of such a statement appears to be a limitation on the the permission to omit the LGPL licence text. Even if that is not a limitation on this new permission, in this wording, the existing requirements of the LGPL to preserve copyright notices appears equivlent. Indeed all of the december licence appears to be additional permissions. It would be preferable if it were clear if this is really just the GPL+special exceptions, such that derivitives could remove the special exceptions. If it is not intended to be such, the FSF would probably take issue with this license So, my thought are that the December version is free, being just LGPL+additional permissions. I also tend to think it is fully GPL compatible, although I would really prefer clarification on it being just standard removable special exceptions. Unfortunately the same is not true of the May version: 4. Authors that develop applications and widgets that use FLTK must include the following statement in their user documentation: [program/widget] is based in part on the work of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). That requirement is free, but makes this GPL-incompatible. This also appears to be an abuse of the LGPL, which should never have additional restrictions attached to it. Reccomendation: Check with upstream to see if the December version applies to libfltk2. If so, that is good. If not, try to convince them to update it to use the new license or preferably, an even newer version of the license that uses the standard special exception terms. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:43:14 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. Could you please elaborate on this? 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's complete source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and assuming that an appropriate copyright notice does identify their use of FLTK sufficiently. This then permeates the rest of the licence and the additional permission to use section 6 without having to pass on the licence doesn't change that requirement. As Joe Smith has just explained in more detail, one of the two license versions includes a more specific requirement to embed a verbatim sentence in user documentation: I cannot find any such restriction in the GNU LGPL v2.1... -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpPovYPM2s4y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
* Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk [090329 12:03]: I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to hard to change to call it free. imho, the difference between plain text and a plain pdf is minimal. If, however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ... Note that I said most cases. There are .pdfs thinkable that are their own preferred form of modification. But usually there is some something lost. Even if it is only splitting words when wrapping, there is often something involved that makes changing even only small things a tedious task. If we ship it we should be able to make modifications, like adding a half-sentence with same warning or changing some problematic words. If that is reasonable possible with the pdf, then it can be OK in my eyes. But as I said, I think in most cases that is simply not the case. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:36:02 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote: EUPL v1.1 full text: Thanks Miriam! European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1 Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007 [...] 5. Obligations of the Licensee The grant of the rights mentioned above is subject to some restrictions and obligations imposed on the Licensee. Those obligations are the following: [...] o Compatibility clause: If the Licensee Distributes and/or Communicates Derivative Works or copies thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work licensed under a Compatible Licence, this Distribution and/or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence. For the sake of this clause, Compatible Licence refers to the licences listed in the appendix attached to this Licence. Should the Licensee's obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with his/her obligations under this Licence, the obligations of the Compatible Licence shall prevail. [...] Appendix Compatible Licences according to article 5 EUPL are: * General Public License (GPL) v. 2 [...] Without looking at the rest, I think that the quoted parts should be enough to (artificially) create GPLv2-compatibility. Moreover, since combining with GPLv2'ed code allows one to distribute the whole resulting work under the GPLv2, I think this trick should be considered enough to turn any EUPL'ed work into one that complies with the DFSG. Or am I wrong? Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpesd3Ed8sVS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FLTK License
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: As Joe Smith has just explained in more detail, one of the two license versions includes a more specific requirement to embed a verbatim sentence in user documentation: I cannot find any such restriction in the GNU LGPL v2.1... I was looking at the December 2001 version mainly. The May 2001 version may be broken, but it's not clear to me. I'll cc this to the given bugs address to ask if the fltk team would update fltk 2.0 to the December 2001 version of the FLTK licence. fltk-bugs, how about it? 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
gammu: gnapplet.sis requires packages which are not in our archive (was: distributing precompiled binaries)
reopen 521448 ! retitle gammu: gnapplet.sis requires packages which are not in our archive stop Justification: Policy 2.2 This email is to reopen bug 521448. As I understand the close message, while gammu's source does contain source code for gnapplet.sis, it requires packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation. That's given in debian-policy section 2.2.2 as an example of something which should be in the contrib section of the archive network, so this seems still a problem. A split package would be better than pointing users upstream, IMO. The section of debian-policy is http://www.fr.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-contrib The email discussion of gammu's gnapplet.sis and a similar case starts at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/03/msg00127.html It finished with:- Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:33:59 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: It seems to me that bug #521448 is an attempt to report this [...] Reopen and retitle? [...] Could you please do that? [...] Done. Thanks for your time and hope this isn't too awkward to fix. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
