Re: Are Web-API packages need to be in the 'main' repo ?
If we can agree that dependency on a non-free web service is equal to dependency on a non-free software library, then we can open bug reports, and move the affected packages to 'contrib'. For general web browsers, having 'Google' search engine (or Yahoo) is merely suggested dependency, because it does not affect main functionality of the web browser. -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- 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/CAOJ6w=FU=2mh1rr6DAJ_ZTQMs5jNWyWU1ygzXhMZ9J3=-y2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:18:41 -0500 Clark C. Evans wrote: Is there a debian-legal position on Appropriate Legal Notices aspect of the GPLv3. Including 5(d) and 7(b); I don't think there's a debian-legal position (whatever that may mean) on the GNU GPL v3. My own personal analysis may be found here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00267.html In extreme summary, I dislike both clause 5(d) and clause 7(b). OR, alternatively, the OSI approved Common Public Attribution License (CPAL). [...] This license was discussed on debian-legal and considered as failing to meet the DFSG, if I recall correctly: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00165.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00238.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00173.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00174.html -- 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 pgp4frPMh1FK7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
My recommendation (for basically any software, not just yours!) is still licensing under either the GPL, LGPL or Expat MIT/X11 license; of which the GPL sounds like the best fit for what you want. On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 at 14:18:41 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote: Is there a debian-legal position on Appropriate Legal Notices aspect of the GPLv3. Including 5(d) and 7(b) (This is my personal opinion; I'm not speaking for Debian, debian-legal, the ftpmasters (who get the final say on whether things get into Debian or not), my employer, or anyone else.) As far as I understand it, the purpose of §7(b) is to make it absolutely clear that the FSF considers BSD-style licenses - with their this notice must accompany the binaries and/or source clauses - to be GPL-compatible. Regarding §5(d), here are some Appropriate Legal Notices (which has a defined meaning in the license) displayed by gdb whenever it starts up: GNU gdb (GDB) 7.3-debian Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type show copying and show warranty for details. OR, alternatively, the OSI approved Common Public Attribution License (CPAL). I'm a DD who sometimes gives people licensing advice, and I've never heard of that license. As far as I'm concerned, that's a great big warning sign - please avoid obscure licenses. I'm asking because having appropriate credit really resonates with with those in my organization who are getting behind releasing our entire medical informatics system (and modules). There's sometimes a fine line between appropriate credit and obnoxious advertising; the more reasonable you are about it, the happier everyone is likely to be to go along with it (and, I suspect, the more sympathetic a court will be if you sue someone over removing whatever amount of credit is mandated by your license). Is the sort of thing that gdb displays enough for you/them? If so, problem solved. Failing that, if you make the system display what you consider to be appropriate credit, is anyone, realistically, ever going to patch it out? If they did, even after you asked them not to, would you sue them? (If not, then there's no point in mandating it in a license.) From a PR point of view, a non-binding request to do something that reasonable people would probably do anyway seems a more friendly way to deal with your customers in any case. * In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, * these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the display of the Powered by * SugarCRM logo. If the display of the logo is not reasonably feasible for * technical reasons, the Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words * Powered by SugarCRM. I think this goes beyond (A)GPLv3 §7(b): Powered by SugarCRM is neither an Appropriate Legal Notice (defined in the AGPLv3 as a copyright notice, statement of no warranty, or statement that it's under the AGPLv3) nor an author attribution (author attributions look like this: based on software written by John Doe, Jane Smith and FooCorp, Inc.). It's also not necessarily true, or advantageous to the authors of SugarCRM. If I extracted a module from SugarCRM to use in my new webapp, it looks as though the authors of SugarCRM are trying to require me to say Powered by SugarCRM - even if the rest of my webapp is so bad that doing so could damage SugarCRM's reputation! (By contrast, incorporates code from SugarCRM would remain a true fact, and is nicely neutral: a non-binding request to acknowledge use of SugarCRM is much less adversarial and probably has about the same practical effect.) S -- 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/20111214203231.ga...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com Is there a debian-legal position on Appropriate Legal Notices aspect of the GPLv3. Including 5(d) and 7(b); OR, alternatively, the OSI approved Common Public Attribution License (CPAL). I'm asking because having appropriate credit really resonates with with those in my organization who are getting behind releasing our entire medical informatics system (and modules). So, this could be done under GPL /w ALN or under the CPAL. In particular, what of SugarCRM's use of this mechanism? I don't know of anywhere that Powered by SugarCRM is a legal notice. Does anyone? What legal effect does it have? So, I don't believe SugarCRM's interpretation of ALN to include their slogan and logo is acceptable. As you can read near the end of section 0, the ALN is basically the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer. Therefore, SugarCRM's current terms would seem to include an additional restriction, contradicting section 10 as explained by section 7, meaning no-one other than the licensor can distribute it. Boo! I don't like CPAL - I see Francesco Poli has offered links to past discussions. I wonder what the reasoning of the failed OSI was. I think requiring attribution is fine in an ALN and requesting people give you credit with a logo would be a good idea, but trying to force them sucks. Hope that informs, -- 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/e1ravtk-0006o6...@petrol.towers.org.uk
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Clark C. Evans wrote: * In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public * License version 3, these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the * display of the Powered by SugarCRM logo. If the display of the * logo is not reasonably feasible for technical reasons, the * Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words Powered by * SugarCRM. To quote the definition of Appropriate Legal Notices in GPLv3: An interactive user interface displays Appropriate Legal Notices to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. That is, the work can require the displaying of the Copyright notice and that there is no warranty, and that's it. The only other thing that can be done is [r]equiring [the] preservation of specified reasonable legal notices, but that does not include the displaying of those notices. SugarCRM really should consult with the FSF before adopting this kind of additional restriction, but I rather doubt that they have. See http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html and other similar articles about it. Don Armstrong -- Clint why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common? infinity It... Doesn't? Clint good point 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/20111214213732.gt21...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 01:37 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: An interactive user interface displays Appropriate Legal Notices to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. That is, the work can require the displaying of the Copyright notice and that there is no warranty, and that's it. The only other thing that can be done is [r]equiring [the] preservation of specified reasonable legal notices, but that does not include the displaying of those notices. I think these are the criteria used to know when a work is displaying Appropriate Legal Notices, not that it would limit items to be included. In 7(b) the GPLv3 provides for permissive additions which Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it So, I think Attribution is absolutely included, the question for me is if Powered By SugarCRM is a reasonable author attribution. I like Simon's wording of something that would be covered... | (By contrast, incorporates code from SugarCRM would remain a true fact, | and is nicely neutral: a non-binding request to acknowledge use of SugarCRM | is much less adversarial and probably has about the same practical effect.) My broader question is if Debian would permit the distribution of works with a reasonable attribution requirement. Best, Clark -- 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/1323899253.4662.140661011735...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:57:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I don't know of anywhere that Powered by SugarCRM is a legal notice. Does anyone? What legal effect does it have? I worked on the drafting of GPLv3 at my previous job (no tomatoes, please :). You may note that section 7 of (A)GPLv3 says that it is not a GPL-incompatible further restriction for one (with appropriate copyright authorization) to Require preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it. The FSF was convinced by certain arguments at the time that a conventional Powered by logo, such as were in vogue at the time for certain companies, was equivalent to an author attribution (if the logo in some sense did, in fact, refer to the 'author'). SugarCRM relicensed to GPLv3 shortly after the FSF's final publication of GPLv3. The additional licensing terms concerning the logo and so forth that were in place at the time met with the FSF's approval. I haven't followed how those notices have changed, if at all, over time, beyond being aware that SugarCRM at some point relicensed from GPLv3 to AGPLv3. I have generally regarded what SugarCRM did in mid-2007 as the outer bound of what is acceptable badgeware under (A)GPLv3. I believe very strongly that to the extent such provisions authorize badgeware terms they must be construed very narrowly. As an example of how I've applied this in practice, working with the Fedora Project, we succeeded in getting Zarafa to revise its AGPLv3 additional terms to scale them back to approximately what SugarCRM had been doing. - Richard -- 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/20111214211704.ga6...@redhat.com
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Clark C. Evans wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 01:37 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: An interactive user interface displays Appropriate Legal Notices to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. I think these are the criteria used to know when a work is displaying Appropriate Legal Notices, not that it would limit items to be included. This paragraph does both; it describes how Appropriate Legal Notices [ALN] can be displayed, and how ALN are defined. Anything which is not enumerated there does not appear to be an ALN. So, I think Attribution is absolutely included, the question for me is if Powered By SugarCRM is a reasonable author attribution. I like Simon's wording of something that would be covered... The critical aspect here is whether author attributions are required to be preserved in the material, or also in the ALNs. Retaining them in the material is clearly reasonable, but I don't believe that forcing them to be present in the ALN is consistent with the terms of the GPL. But in any event, since no one appears to be planning on packaging sugarCRM for Debian, I'll just stop here. Don Armstrong -- More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -- Woody Allen 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/20111214222840.gu21...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com writes: I'm asking because having appropriate credit really resonates with with those in my organization who are getting behind releasing our entire medical informatics system (and modules). So, this could be done under GPL /w ALN or under the CPAL. I'll mention, again, that this forum is not appropriate for general discussion about licenses in the absence of an actual existing work that is proposed for (or already in) Debian. Please find a different forum for discussing licenses in general. -- \ “This [Bush] Administration is not sinking. This Administration | `\ is soaring. If anything they are rearranging the deck chairs on | _o__) the Hindenburg.” —Steven Colbert, 2006-04-29 | Ben Finney -- 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/87bora233b@benfinney.id.au
