Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: > I always thought that such distribution would be in breach of the > GPL, or more generally of copyleft. After all, it is impossible to > distinguish, from the outside, between lost and secret sources. In such a case, where you suspected secret sources, you'd sue, and during discovery, compel the information regarding the creation of the work including sources to be turned over. People could still lie then, too, but deliberately lying during discovery can have pretty harsh penalties. > And if the I-want-my-sources-secret person does not care about later > modifications, he might even really delete the sources. In such a case, the author of the modifications isn't in a privileged position. Don Armstrong -- A kiss was mysterious and powerful, fragile and invincible. Like any spark, a kiss might fizzle into nothing or consume an entire forest. [...] A kiss could change the entire world. -- Scott Westerfeld _The Killing of Worlds_ p336 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316202557.gb23...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:39:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > > Sure, it should be - what happens if [the source] no longer exists? That > > seems > > quite possible for a years-old journal paper. > > This seems to be a FAQ... > > Well, if some form of that work no longer exists, it cannot be the > preferred form for making modifications to the work itself. > > One thing is when the author/maintainer uses a form of the work to make > modifications (because he/she prefers that form), but does not make > this form available to others. > In this case, the actual source is being kept secret. > > One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of the work > any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making modifications, > since it no longer exists. > In this case, the actual source is the preferred form for making > modifications, among the existing ones. Is this your personal opinion or did you perceive it to be commonly accepted? I am asking because I tend to disagree. The scenario I have in mind is that someone takes a, say, GPLed work, modifies it, and distributes the modified work without (what would otherwise be called) sources, claiming that he "lost" the sources. I always thought that such distribution would be in breach of the GPL, or more generally of copyleft. After all, it is impossible to distinguish, from the outside, between lost and secret sources. And if the I-want-my-sources-secret person does not care about later modifications, he might even really delete the sources. It should not be that easy to weasel out of copyleft. 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316194845.GA5895@debian
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > It's true that there's no clear definition of the term "source code" > > in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the > > context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for > > quite a long time. > > Are you sure it's the most accepted? I didn't find numbers on it. At least here on debian-legal, it seems to be the only commonly accepted definition. Any other (tentative) definition is vague at best... > > > [...] > > > I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to > > > reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. > > > > I instead think that the actual source code (= preferred form for > > modifications) should be searched for. > > Sure, it should be - what happens if it no longer exists? That seems > quite possible for a years-old journal paper. This seems to be a FAQ... Well, if some form of that work no longer exists, it cannot be the preferred form for making modifications to the work itself. One thing is when the author/maintainer uses a form of the work to make modifications (because he/she prefers that form), but does not make this form available to others. In this case, the actual source is being kept secret. One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the existing ones. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp8cqmmArqFu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] >> It's true that there's no clear definition of the term "source code" >> in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the >> context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for >> quite a long time. > > Are you sure it's the most accepted? I didn't find numbers on it. I have been on this list for a decade, and I have not seen any other definitions that have any significant support. Perhaps other forums have different makeups, but on debian-legal I have not seen any other cohesive approaches. I have seen plenty of people say things like "it is POSSIBLE to modify it, therefore it is source". But that makes the source requirement a no-op. This is in contrast to, for example, which licenses people prefer. Some people prefer GPL, some prefer MIT, some prefer BSD, etc. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316.091951.170313769160757168.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Dontspace cardset license
*bump* anyone? regards br Am Freitag, den 11.03.2011, 20:07 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Reiter: > Am Freitag, den 11.03.2011, 08:50 -0800 schrieb John Heidemann: > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:22:20 +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >I've packaged the PySolFC card game and supplementary cardsets [1] for > > >Ubuntu, which happen to contain a cardset dubbed jacoby taken from your > > >dontspace game [2] and modified by Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer for use with > > >PySolFC's predecessor PySol. I'm also trying to get this stuff into > > >Debian, but as they're rather picky about copyright and licensing, my > > >packages currently do not include that cardset, as there seem to be no > > >copyright or license notes included with it. > > > > > >I'd like to ask you if you're willing to re-publish the cardset (or the > > >dontspace game including it) under any license you're happy with and > > >that is debian-compatible, from permissive (as the MIT license [3]) to > > >viral (as the GPL [4]). > > > > > >Kind Regards > > >Bernhard Reiter > > > > > >[1] http://pysolfc.sourceforge.net/ > > >[2] http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/SOFTWARE/JACOBY/index.html > > >[3] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php > > >[4] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php > > > > Jacoby is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license. > > I think this meets your requirements. > > Definitely. > > > Looking at the release (more than 10 years ago!), I see that I didn't > > document the license in the README, web page, or a separate LICENSE file > > (sigh, those were simpler days). However, the license is stated in the > > Tcl source files (e.g., klondkie and dontspace). > > I've only had a look at the cardset itself included with PySolFC, which > is why I didn't get to see those license statements... > > > If you need a more explicit license statement, it would be easiest for > > me to add a statement on the web page, if that's sufficient. Doing a > > release is more involved (and so would take time), but is not > > impossible. > > CC'ing to debian-legal for advice/comments. > > >-John Heidemann > > Regards > Bernhard > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1300279007.2743.25.camel@razor
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Paul Wise wrote: > This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have > rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were > generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ: > > Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do > not have it. These include PDF and PS files in the documentation. > > http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Indeed, but that REJECT-FAQ has not been applied to this package as far as I can tell, maybe because it predates it. Maybe someone who thinks those PS files should be removed should reportbug it? 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316093216.0dada50...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > It's true that there's no clear definition of the term "source code" > in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the > context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for > quite a long time. Are you sure it's the most accepted? I didn't find numbers on it. > [...] > > I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to > > reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. > > I instead think that the actual source code (= preferred form for > modifications) should be searched for. Sure, it should be - what happens if it no longer exists? That seems quite possible for a years-old journal paper. Thanks, -- 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316092639.4c16750...@nail.towers.org.uk
