Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 09:35 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:15:15AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: Again, why do you plan on removing free software from main due to a change in license? As algernon points out, it makes slightly more sense when you remember that the AGPLv3 is not compatable with the GPLv2 I'm still against removing it from the archive. But the new version should not build the default libdb-dev, as that is likely to result in unintended GPLv2/v3 combinations that cannot be distributed. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 09:44 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: Hi, Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/56.html). This hasn't been reflected in release tarball (probably by mistake), but since the AGPLv3 is not very friendly to downstream projects, we (as the Debian project) need to take a decision. My opinion is that this Oracle move just sent the Berkeley DB to oblivion, and Berkeley DB will be less and less used (or replaced by something else). If the relicensing is real and not another misconfiguration of the build/release system (like with MySQL docs), this sounds like a shakedown for proprietary users of Berkeley DB. GPLv2-licensed users are collateral damage. What we can do right now (more can apply): [...] [ ] Keep db5.3 forever Well, indefinitely. But I somewhat expect some BSD developers to try maintaining a fork of it, as they're very unlikely to be happy with AGPLv3. [ ] Suck it and relicense the downstream software as appropriate [...] GPLv3 is compatible with almost all common licences except GPLv2 (though that might not be true with the additional conditions of AGPLv3). If anyone has made a decision to use GPLv2-only then I wouldn't expect them to relicense for this. Therefore a BSD-licensed libdb is still needed. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#666010: ITP: nvidia-texture-tools -- image processing and texture manipulation tools
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:15:27PM +0200, Lennart Weller wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Lennart Weller l...@ring0.de * Package name: nvidia-texture-tools Version : 2.0.8 Upstream Author : Ignacio Castano icast...@nvidia.com * URL : http://code.google.com/p/nvidia-texture-tools/ * License : MIT/Expat, BSD-2-clause Programming Lang: C++ Description : image processing and texture manipulation tools NVIDIA Texture Tools is a collection of image processing and texture manipulation tools, designed to be integrated in game tools and asset conditioning pipelines. The primary features of the library are mipmap and normal map generation, format conversion and DXT compression. The sourcecode contains algorithms protected by US patent 5,956,431 aka S3TC. Though from what I've read on debian-legal this should be okay as the patent is not actively enforced. Since you've accepted as fact that this software infringes those patents, it looks like you're about to violate item 1 of the Debian patent policy. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- 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/20120327230115.gt12...@decadent.org.uk
Re: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 03:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Apr 10, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote: I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable programmer. Thus, we do not have the preferred form for modification, and thus, we cannot distribute it under the GPLv2. Thank you for the great work you are doing to improve Debian. Brian is right; binary-only firmware generally can't be distributed under GPLv2. I forget what the status of tg3 is but Michael Chan of Broadcom has worked with us on separating bnx2 and bnx2x firmware under an appropriate licence, so I expect it will be possible to fix any remaining problems with tg3 firmware licencing. You are doing nothing but insulting people who point out the legal and ethical issues with embedded firmware blobs, and that certainly doesn't improve Debian. Ben. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New Ion3 licence
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28 days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like to commit to that, and certainly the package would have to remain unreleased. It would also require the package(s) to be moved to the non-free archive, I think. Then I think you've misread. Patch clauses and name change clauses are explicitly allowed under the DFSG They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when the requirement is in place for *modified* works. The license in question is requiring a name change for even *unmodified* works, and that's non-free. But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so far as it applied to the Debian package. Right? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New Ion3 licence
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 19:27 +0100, I wrote: The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new licence[1] which includes the clause: 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name of this software (ion, ion3, etc.), must provide the latest release with a reasonable delay from its release (normally 28 days). Older releases may be distributed, if the full version, or some other explicit indicator, such as the word ancient, is part of the name that the package is accessed with, or if this identifier is completely unrelated to a name of this software. He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I expected[2]. (However, there is already an icewm, so I can't take quite the same approach. :-)) [1] http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-April/001967.html [2] http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-March/001827.html Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New Ion3 licence
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so far as it applied to the Debian package. Right? Note the wording makes it pretty much apply to everything, including the renamed version debian would redistribute, so, for example, derivative distributions should use yet another name... Ah, I see the problem, but I'm sure that's unintentional and could be fixed. However, this is now moot as it seems others have persuaded him to use separate copyright (LGPL, as before) and trademark licences. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New Ion3 licence
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so far as it applied to the Debian package. Right? Note the wording makes it pretty much apply to everything, including the renamed version debian would redistribute, so, for example, derivative distributions should use yet another name... Ah, I see the problem, but I'm sure that's unintentional and could be fixed. However, this is now moot as it seems others have persuaded him to use separate copyright (LGPL, as before) and trademark licences. To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first place. Is it ? It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the author claims. I don't think we really want to test that claim, do we? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
New Ion3 licence
The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new licence[1] which includes the clause: 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name of this software (ion, ion3, etc.), must provide the latest release with a reasonable delay from its release (normally 28 days). Older releases may be distributed, if the full version, or some other explicit indicator, such as the word ancient, is part of the name that the package is accessed with, or if this identifier is completely unrelated to a name of this software. He expanded on what accessible means: If the software can be installed with `$pkgtool install ion3` (resp. `$pkgtool install ion`), where `$pkgtool install` stands for the install feature of the distribution's package management tool, this should always install the latest standard release of Ion3 (resp. in the whole Ion project). The action `$pkgtool install ion-3ds-20070318` may, however, at any date install this particular marked release. Likewise `$pkgtool ion-with-tonnes-of-unsupported-pathces` may install any altered version. While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28 days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like to commit to that, and certainly the package would have to remain unreleased. So I think this would require a package name change. Any other opinion on that? Ben. [1] http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-April/001959.html -- Ben Hutchings If God had intended Man to program, we'd have been born with serial I/O ports. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New Ion3 licence
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 18:26 -0400, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 27/04/07, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new licence[1] which includes the clause: 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name of this software (ion, ion3, etc.), must provide the latest release with a reasonable delay from its release (normally 28 days). Doesn't this fail the desert island test (FAQ #9 below) and hence the DFSG? http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html No, there is no compulsion to distribute. A lot of developers seem to want to include such clauses about the official software being distributed timely and only from one source, usually with good intentions, but fail to see the unfavourable rammifications of their choice. I would recommend to your upstream source to strongly reconsider including these clauses. Oh, he knows what he's doing. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If God had intended Man to program, we'd have been born with serial I/O ports. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Not-so-mass bug filing for the patented IDEA algorithm
[Cc'd to debian-legal in the hope of some informed comment.] On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 14:53 -0400, Matthias Julius wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Er, by definition a patent is supposed to include a complete description of the invention that would permit a third-party to reimplement the invention, in exchange for granting the inventor exclusive rights to the invention for a limited time. Would you argue that distributing copies of the patent application is infringement, too? While you are probably free to distribute the description you are not free to distribute an implementation of the technology claimed by the patent. You can implement it but you can not distribute the implementation. There is an argument that source code can only be a description whereas a binary is an implementation, so only distributing binaries that include the claimed invention could infringe. I'm not sure whether this has been legally tested. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If God had intended Man to program, we'd have been born with serial I/O ports. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Debconf-video] Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: This is a proposed licence text for the Debconf video recordings (and potentially other audio and video recordings), based on the MIT/X licence: Here's the text: Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without [...] Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? It seems to make the recordings to comply with the DFSG. However, I would prefer not seeing the term recording in the license. A more general term such as work would be better suited, IMHO. Yes, I see your point. I also reemembered after posting that we would want the licence to be applicable to DVDs which also include some still images and text. snip The lack of a clear distinction between source and binary for video means that the licence is much more like copyleft than the originali (but without any mention of a preferred form). I don't think that this license could in any way be seen as a copyleft. It does permit me to create a proprietary derivative work, so it's definitely a non-copyleft license. Not an issue, though: I pointed this out just to make things clearer... The licence is contingent upon distributing its own text with any copy of the work or (at least some forms of) derivative work. I thought that that implied the author of the derivative work would grant the same permissions. But perhaps it could be distributed simply as information about the original work. The MIT/X licence doesn't place the same requirement on distributed binaries, AIUI. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All extremists should be taken out and shot. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Debconf-video] Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
[Sorry for the dupe, Don. I meant to reply only to these lists.] Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 15 May 2006, Ben Hutchings wrote: snip Thanks for the diff. This is pretty much is just the XFree86 license; I don't think there's any problem with works under this licence being considered DFSG Free. Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? I seem to remember that there are some specific legal terms relating to copyright of audio recordings. Is there a legal term that would cover transcoding? There are probably a couple, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. snip Transcoding is a technical term that might not be understood in law. There is a term mechanical translation but I'm not sure whether that refers to machine translation of human language or also to format conversion. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All extremists should be taken out and shot. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
Here's a new draft. I've changed recording to work throughout and replaced transcode with transform and adapt, based on the terminology CC uses. --- debconf-video-licence.draft12006-05-14 21:18:51.0 -0500 +++ debconf-video-licence.draft22006-05-18 13:48:51.226221352 -0500 @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining -a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without +a copy of this work, to deal in the work without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, -transcode, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell -copies of the recording, and to permit persons to whom the recording +transform, adapt, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell +copies of the work, and to permit persons to whom the work is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be -distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or +distributed with all copies, transformations and adaptations of the work or substantial portions thereof. -THE RECORDING IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, +THE WORK IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION -WITH THE RECORDING OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE RECORDING. +WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE WORK. -- Ben Hutchings All extremists should be taken out and shot. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
This is a proposed licence text for the Debconf video recordings (and potentially other audio and video recordings), based on the MIT/X licence: Here's the text: Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, transcode, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the recording, and to permit persons to whom the recording is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or substantial portions thereof. THE RECORDING IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECORDING OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE RECORDING. Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? I seem to remember that there are some specific legal terms relating to copyright of audio recordings. Is there a legal term that would cover transcoding? Are there loopholes by which someone could legally remove the copyright notice and permission notice? The lack of a clear distinction between source and binary for video means that the licence is much more like copyleft than the originali (but without any mention of a preferred form). Does anyone on the video team see this as a problem? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Humour is the best antidote to reality. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
