Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
[Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] -=| Walter Landry, Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 05:08:14AM -0800 |=- MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Damyan Ivanov d...@debian.org wrote: Most of the code is licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, [...] In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some more icons are licensed under GPL-2. From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for the main code, that still leaves the combination of GPL-2 (code and some .png icons) and LGPL-3+ (.png icons). Is such aggregation OK? If it's mere aggregation, I believe each stays under their own licence. Just to be clear, if it is not mere aggregation, then it is not ok. If the LGPL-3+ icons are required for the program to operate correctly, that is a hint that licenses need to be compatible with GPL-2. Reading GPL-2, mere aggregation is when two independent works sit on the same volume of a storage or distribution medium. In the case I am after, both works are in the same upstream tarball, and in the same .deb. The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source -- object code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime and used in the user interface. Does this sound like a mere aggregation? -- damJabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
[Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] -=| MJ Ray, Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:15:21PM + |=- Damyan Ivanov d...@debian.org wrote: [...] The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source -- object code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime and used in the user interface. Does this sound like a mere aggregation? Yes, in my opinion. If you can change the icons at runtime without ill-effect (within reason - it's OK if the new icons must be the same size, for example) and it's just that they're in the same tar volume, that seems like mere aggregation to me. See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation I suggest that the icons are used only as runtime data and no information is interchanged with them. Hope that explains, It does indeed. Thank you all for helping me put the pieces together. -- damJabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
[Please Cc me on replies. Thanks] My upstream uses several licenses and this makes be feel a bit uneasy deciding if they can be combined. Please advice. Most of the code is licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, which means either Artistic license, or (at your opinion) GPL (any version). In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some more icons are licensed under GPL-2. From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for the main code, that still leaves the combination of GPL-2 (code and some .png icons) and LGPL-3+ (.png icons). Is such aggregation OK? TIA -- damJabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#497200: ITP: rt2860-source -- source for RT2860 wireless adapter kernel module
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: rt2860-source
Version : 1.7.0.0
Upstream Author : Ralink Tech Inc
* URL : http://www.ralinktech.com/
* License : GPL-2+ some binary non-free firmware
Programming Lang: C
Description : source for RT2860 wireless adapter kernel module
RT2860 is a wireless adapter found particularly in the ASUS EeePC model
901 and above. The package contains the source of a Linux kernel module
for it.
There may be some licensing problems and this is why I CC debian-legal.
All the sources are licensed under GPL-2+, except one file,
include/firmware.h, which is generated from a binary blob and contains
the following notice:
/*
Copyright (c) 2007, Ralink Technology Corporation
All rights reserved.
Redistribution. Redistribution and use in binary form, without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
* Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice and the
following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of Ralink Technology Corporation nor the names of
its
suppliers may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
software without specific prior written permission.
* No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this
software
is permitted.
Limited patent license. Ralink Technology Corporation grants a world-wide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive license under patents it now or hereafter
owns or controls to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell and
sell (Utilize) this software, but solely to the extent that any
such patent is necessary to Utilize the software alone, or in
combination with an operating system licensed under an approved Open
Source license as listed by the Open Source Initiative at
http://opensource.org/licenses. The patent license shall not apply to
any other combinations which include this software. No hardware per
se is licensed hereunder.
DISCLAIMER. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
*/
/* AUTO GEN PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY IT */
/* AUTO GEN PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY IT */
UCHAR FirmwareImage [] = {
0x02, 0x03, 0x5e, 0x02, 0x02, 0xb1, 0x22, 0x22, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0x02, 0x01,
0x82, 0xff, 0xff,
.
I did not yet check if this code is actually linked in the GPL-2+
module, but have a bad feeling it it does. Would a compiled GPL source,
including firmware.h be even distributable?
Perhaps the module can be changed to load its firmware from external
file or even not need that nasty firmware.h (there are traces of
support to other hardware and that firmware may be for them).
--
dam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Advise about missing copyright info
[Please keep CC debian-perl] Dear debian-legal readers, Currently, libsys-syslog-perl has the following debian/copyright: [...] Upstream Author: Sebastien Aperghis-Tramoni This package contains the following copyright notice: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. The license terms for Perl are as follows: [...] As you see, there is no explicit notice about copyright. I guess the author information is derived from http://search.cpan.org/dist/Sys-Syslog/ where it is evident who uploaded the module on CPAN. I've already filed a bug[1] upstream, but am wondering whether this missing copyright notice is a serious bug according to the Policy 2.3: [...] Therefore a program without a copyright notice is copyrighted and you may not do anything to it without risking being sued! [...] Please advise. [1] http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=29451 -- damJabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
Francesco Poli wrote: A package that includes a part which is licensed in a non-free manner does *not* comply with the DFSG. I cannot extract that part of FlameRobin source code (namely the IBPP C++ classes) and exercise the freedoms the DFSG guarantee. Therefore, FlameRobin does not meet the DFSG and cannot be in main, according to the SC. You can extract IBPP from FlameRobin and do whatever you want with it as long as it is included in a Hello, World!-probram. Yes, this is a restriction, but is easily worked around. I repeat. My suggestion is: try (harder) to persuade IBPP upstream to adopt the real unmodified Expat license. That way, every concern would vanish. I am trying since November 2005. Not that I have no progress (original license was IDPL - an MPL clone). This is what upstream says about original expat: I know that some people would prefer IBPP to go with the unchanged Expat license (often mistakenly named MIT/BSD license - which is not the exact same thing) because it looks so close to that one. But no, it won't be. IBPP has its own terms. and later: This discussion is over for me. I will have well enough to do with the OSI certification in the coming weeks and months. MJRay, may we have your comments too? Olivier sent me copies of some off-list discussion in which you tend to agree that new license is ok for Debian. Firendly, dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Triplett wrote: Damyan Ivanov wrote: === The problematic? clause === Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files covered by this license (the “Software”) to use the Software as part of another work; to modify it for that purpose; to publish or distribute it, modified or not, for that same purpose; to permit persons to whom the other work using the Software is furnished to do so; subject to the following conditions: the above copyright notice and this complete and unmodified permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software; You will not misrepresent modified versions of the Software as being the original. === Francesco Poli wrote: What if I want to modify the library itself and distribute the result by itself? This is not permitted, AFAIU. Why have I to be annoyed by this wrap it in some silly container work requirement? Better to adopt the actual Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt), IMHO. I see your point and I agree. But the author deliberately modified Expat license to include the above terms. So the questions is: Is this DFSG-free or not? Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. That particular point, that you only plan to use it with one particular piece of software, has no bearing on DFSG-freeness. I guess my explaination was not clear enough. I follow this re-licensing effort for so long that I tend to omit the details. Sorry. IBPP is released only as source (i.e. a set of C++ classes, no .so, no library). FlameRobin incorporates this released source in its source tree. So we are talking about packaging FlameRobin, which source contains some files licensed under the above terms. The rest of FlameRobin is (soon to be) licensed under unmodified Expat license. And I don't plan to package IBPP in separate package, but only flamerobin.deb (with part of the .orig.tar.gz using tha above license) I am not sure if this makes a difference... This license itself seems highly suboptimal, but it *may* follow the letter of the DFSG: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources does indeed permit pieces of software which do not permit solo distribution, since you can always bundle them with a hello world program to make them distributable. (This also makes such licensing relatively worthless.) One question however: does the author intend use the Software as part of another work to imply that the work must incorporate or derive from the Software, or simply that the Software must occur as part of a larger work of some kind, including potentially an aggregate with unrelated programs, such as the Debian distribution? The latter follows the letter of the DFSG; the former places a stronger requirement that I don't believe the DFSG permits. I beleive that something like FlameRobin is sought. (i.e. the former). And this is exactly the context of using the IBPP - as an integral part of another software. I beleive this is not a problem, since the FlameRobin package would satisfy both licensing (original Expath and this modified thingy - the IBPP license) and the Social contract. I mention SC, because of this text: We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines.. If we take components to be equal to packages then I beleive[1] the FlameRobin package fits in SC and DFSG. Friendly, dam - -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELkEpHqjlqpcl9jsRAu/UAJ40sAbELq+CVpOrIqBR5+9wBMazpACcD0Ai bdpG1bJQh4yh+GO64G/l8mI= =NVSq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Francesco Poli wrote: On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:48:53 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote: Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. I see, but imagine which permissions someone would get, if he/she wanted to extract IBPP from FlameRobin's source... (See also my answer to Josh Triplett) The intention of the author is not to permit the sole usage. IBPP may be used only as part of another software. And this exactly is my intent - - packaging FlameRobin, which contains IBPP. Friendly, dam - -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELkJvHqjlqpcl9jsRAgZOAJ44Q1NkY6uyp2fj+oHK285vXI/+ugCeLmkm awj8EfLx03lMzDIGFzRNAvE= =TTh6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: the new license for IBPP
=== The problematic? clause === Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files covered by this license (the “Software”) to use the Software as part of another work; to modify it for that purpose; to publish or distribute it, modified or not, for that same purpose; to permit persons to whom the other work using the Software is furnished to do so; subject to the following conditions: the above copyright notice and this complete and unmodified permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software; You will not misrepresent modified versions of the Software as being the original. === Francesco Poli wrote: What if I want to modify the library itself and distribute the result by itself? This is not permitted, AFAIU. Why have I to be annoyed by this wrap it in some silly container work requirement? Better to adopt the actual Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt), IMHO. I see your point and I agree. But the author deliberately modified Expat license to include the above terms. So the questions is: Is this DFSG-free or not? Please bear in mind that IBPP is really to be used in FlameRobin's packaging, not by itself. dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: MPL license
Walter Landry wrote: Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really non-free mails. It is indeed non-free. It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian. It requires keeping the source around for every binary for at least six months. It also has problems with choice of venue. If MPL is cast on stone as non-distributable, I guess I must take the necessary steps to get firebird2 out of the archive? firebird2 uses Interbase Public License 1.0 and Initial Developer Public License (1.0), both of which are MPL-based with Mozilla Foundation replaced with Borland and Initial developer respectively. Both IPL and IDPL have source of venue clauses and requirement to keep source available for some fixed period of time. I could try convincing upstream to change the license, but one of the authors is Borland, which, after releasing Interbase under IPL later closed it again so I guess chances that they re-license is rather small. No pain in trying, though. Joerg, please post here ftp-masters' ruling so I know what to do. Thanks, dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again
Hi, Milan, [Yet another cross-post to debian-legal, whose comments are needed at the lower part of this mail. Thanks] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes. If possible, I intend to convince everyone to dual license FR under GPL and someting else. How? If IBPPL1.0 is incompatible with GPL? Whatever licenses are chosen for FR they all must be compatible with the licensing of IBPP, right? If IBPPLx.y is made GPL-compatible, theh this is no problem of course. I for one don't run for GPL for FR, neither IBPP. I'd welcome GPL, as well as any other license that satisfies Debian Free Software Guidelines. Even if we agree IBPPL1.0 is not compatible with GPL, what about (modified)BSD/Expat? I can't see any gotchas in combining those with IBPPL1.0 Do you mean: if IBPP is licensed under BSD/Expat license? Well, then there is no problem. BSD license is not viral, it only requires that license text is included in code. It puts no restrictions on embedding it in larger work and relicensing that. Or you meant for us to release FR under BSD/expat? That one is out of the question. The later. (This is just to clarify what I meant. Not that I insist on FR being licensed under Expat or something) Authors. MPL/IDPL say that modifications must be given to anyone you provide with executable version, while GPL says that modifications must be given to the public. You provide changes to the GPL-ed code to the public and changes to IBPP to its authors. What's wrong with this? FR would not have a single license. Parts of it's code would be licensed under IBPP license, and it wouldn't be included in main. I am not sure I understand you completely. There is ongoing effort to mage IBPP's license suitable for including IBPP sources and programs using them in Debian/main. If these efforts give some result, FR's license is still a problem (being IDPL). That's why I try to discuss FR's licensing at the same time as IBPP's licensing - to move two tasks in parallel and save a couple of months. I also understand and respect Nando's wishes about commercial use of parts or entire FR, and I somewhat even agree on that. So, the solution that would suit us is: 1. IBPP changing the about mentioned constraint And FR stays IDPL? Still problematic for inclusion in Debian. No, I've re-read IDPL again, and it does have problems. What is the difference with (modified)BSD/Expat-like license plus the requirement to publish changes (if this desired)? Here's what we want, but IANAL so I can't make a license out of it: 1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is. 2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated to publish them 3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version available, he must make the modifications available to the same person he made executable version available to. 4. no warranty IDPL is close to that, but it has problems. Mostly the Californian courts, US regulations (not needed at all IMO), and some other problems already noted by Debian team. Alright. Please, folks on debian-legal, can you see any problem including software with such licensing in Debian? Can you recommend a license that satisfies the above points and is DFSG-free? To me it seems like Expat plus point 3 above (but I can't legal-speek-phrase it). Thanks in advance, dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
IBPP license 1.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [META: This is a cross-post to ibpp-discuss and debian-legal. I'd like to give direct discussion a chance, since I am rather busy and can't mediate in a timely fashion] Olivier, below is another comment about the new license. When answering, pleace keep CCs. Just FYI, the freedom X mentioned below is from the definition of Free software at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (I had to look for this link and thought it may be useful to mention it here) Thanks, dam - Original Message Subject: Re: Please comment on IBPP licensing Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:47:00 -0600 (CST) Resent-From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:46:53 + From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked for comments on: * 0. Definitions o 0.1. IBPP 'IBPP' is primarily a set of programming interfaces, initially written in the C++ language, which makes it easier to develop any other programming work which need to communicate and work with Firebird, a SQL-based database engine and server, and possibly other similar engines and servers. Further in this document we also name 'IBPP' the source code itself which implements those interfaces and any associated files whatever their nature. o 0.2. TIP 'TIP' is the company T.I.P. Group S.A., a legal entity, registered in the Kingdom of Belgium under the enterprise identification number 0.429.942.927. Contact information: http://www.tipgroup.com. Most of the two above should be in README and AUTHORS, in my opinion. o 0.3. Authors 'Authors' is the college of private persons or legal entities, including TIP, who at least once contributed to IBPP. College? What law is this drafted for? * 1. Copyrights The very initial version of IBPP (0.9) was released in the year 2000 by TIP. Through this initial contribution, TIP holds a Copyright (c) 2000 on that original version of IBPP. In addition, each and every private person or legal entity, including TIP, who since contributed or contribute to IBPP hold a shared Copyright (c) year of contribution with TIP on that portion of code they contribute, wether the contribution is made by modification or addition to the source code or associated files. Spelling error s/wether/whether/ already. First of many. * 2. Rights Without damage of the duties exposed at article 3., the Authors Confusing wording: lawyerbomb? hereby grant the following permissions, free of charge, to any private person or legal entity (hereafter You): Permission not granted to public legal entities (UK = plcs, royal charter corporations IIRC). Breaks DFSG 5 (No Discrimination Against Persons) or 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour). o 2.1. Right to Use To use (edit when required, compile and link) the IBPP source code as part of a larger programming work which effectively makes use of some or all of the functionnalities offered by IBPP. Restriction on use: we might not agree that something is effectively making use. Lawyerbomb, possibly breaking DFSG 3 (Derived Works). o 2.2. Right to Modify To develop modifications or additions which enhance or fix IBPP. Restriction on modification: we might not agree that something is an enhancement. Lawyerbomb, possibly breaking DFSG 3 (Derived Works). o 2.3. Right to Publish To publish the IBPP source code along with your own source code which uses it. No permission to copy alone? Might not be free software at all (doesn't give freedom 2) but can be made so trivially. * 3. Duties o 3.1. Duty to give modifications back to IBPP Authors Any modification or addition done to IBPP will be submitted to the Authors, so that those modifications or additions can be reviewed, possibly modified or fixed, and eventually merged in a new version of IBPP, if the modification is found by the Authors to be of interest to the IBPP users community. Forced donation upstream of work. I regard this as a payment or royalty on derived works, breaking DFSG 1 (Free Redistribution). I know others disagree, but I don't understand their reasoning. o 3.2. Duty to play by the rules when publishing the IBPP source code When You publish the IBPP source code with your own source code which uses it, You must also publish this license.txt file and You must not remove any of the licensing and copyright texts located near the beginning of the IBPP source code files. No-op in many (all?) copyright laws. o 3.3. Duty to free IBPP Authors from any responsability When You use IBPP in your programming works, You implicitely agree to free the Authors from any
Re: Please comment on IBPP licensing
Francesco Poli wrote: Apart from clause 3.1 (which must be dropped anyway, if DFSG-freeness is sought), this license seems to try to grant a set of permissions not too different from the ones granted by the Expat a.k.a. MIT license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt). If I were you, I would try to persuade upstream to adopt the Expat license, rather than this contorted and unclear license. Writing a new license is a difficult and long task and should be avoided unless strictly necessary. Adopting an existing, clear and well understood license (such as the Expat one) is almost always far better. Thank you Francesco, Walter and Justin, Unfortunatelly upstream seem to insist on their license and what's worse, resist to changing it. Anyway, I'll try mu super-suggestive powers to make them see the spoon melt :) Thanks again, dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Please comment on IBPP licensing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, The following license is used for IBPP[1] - a library for working with Firebird/Interbase database servers. This library is included (at source level) in FlameRobin[2] - a graphical tool for working with Firebird/Interbase which I intent to package. Flaberobin's license is not yet clear, but is expected to follow IBPP. Either way, I need your comments about DFSG-compatibility of IBPP license. Note that this license is newly accomodated after leaving MPL (partly due to me arguing against MPL), so the intent is to make it free. License can be found at [3], attached here for reference. My humble opinion is that it is almost DFSG-free. The only problem section is 3.1 (requires changes to be sent to upstream). There are some things that are implicit (defining copyrights f.ex.), which IMHO don't belong to the license, but do no harm either. Thanks in advance for your comments, dam [1] http://www.ibpp.org/ [2] http://flamerobin.sf.net/ [3] http://www.editthis.info/ibpp/index.php/License - -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim * 0. Definitions o 0.1. IBPP 'IBPP' is primarily a set of programming interfaces, initially written in the C++ language, which makes it easier to develop any other programming work which need to communicate and work with Firebird, a SQL-based database engine and server, and possibly other similar engines and servers. Further in this document we also name 'IBPP' the source code itself which implements those interfaces and any associated files whatever their nature. o 0.2. TIP 'TIP' is the company T.I.P. Group S.A., a legal entity, registered in the Kingdom of Belgium under the enterprise identification number 0.429.942.927. Contact information: http://www.tipgroup.com. o 0.3. Authors 'Authors' is the college of private persons or legal entities, including TIP, who at least once contributed to IBPP. * 1. Copyrights The very initial version of IBPP (0.9) was released in the year 2000 by TIP. Through this initial contribution, TIP holds a Copyright (c) 2000 on that original version of IBPP. In addition, each and every private person or legal entity, including TIP, who since contributed or contribute to IBPP hold a shared Copyright (c) year of contribution with TIP on that portion of code they contribute, wether the contribution is made by modification or addition to the source code or associated files. * 2. Rights Without damage of the duties exposed at article 3., the Authors hereby grant the following permissions, free of charge, to any private person or legal entity (hereafter You): o 2.1. Right to Use To use (edit when required, compile and link) the IBPP source code as part of a larger programming work which effectively makes use of some or all of the functionnalities offered by IBPP. o 2.2. Right to Modify To develop modifications or additions which enhance or fix IBPP. o 2.3. Right to Publish To publish the IBPP source code along with your own source code which uses it. * 3. Duties o 3.1. Duty to give modifications back to IBPP Authors Any modification or addition done to IBPP will be submitted to the Authors, so that those modifications or additions can be reviewed, possibly modified or fixed, and eventually merged in a new version of IBPP, if the modification is found by the Authors to be of interest to the IBPP users community. o 3.2. Duty to play by the rules when publishing the IBPP source code When You publish the IBPP source code with your own source code which uses it, You must also publish this license.txt file and You must not remove any of the licensing and copyright texts located near the beginning of the IBPP source code files. o 3.3. Duty to free IBPP Authors from any responsability When You use IBPP in your programming works, You implicitely agree to free the Authors from any and all responsability. You fully endorse IBPP and assume all consequences of using it in your programming works. This goes to the extent that, should the IBPP code be found to infringe on the copyright or patent of any third-party entity, you assume the entire responsability regarding your own programming works which use IBPP. You always a least have the final solution not to use IBPP anymore in your programming works. * 4. New versions of this License TIP is the only entity who can publish new versions of this license and attach such new license versions to any future version of IBPP. Though if doing so, TIP cannot remove any right previously granted by this version 1.0
Re: Copyright infringement of debian's logo
jeremiah foster wrote: This link[0] shows a web site using a slightly modified version of the debian open license logo. The modification is that the logo is blue. Does this constitute a violation of debian's copyright and does debian care? This comes to this list every now and then. See the arvhices. IIRC, lst time it was suggested that this is not a copy of the debian logo, but a logo created using the same brush and the same spiral tool in Adobe Illustrator as the logo of Debian. dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: QPL and non-free
Glenn Maynard wrote: And that's where they really differ: different people implement them. Is to redistribute the work, you must agree to a venue of Norway Isn't the choice of venue clause one of the reasons for MPL to be considered problematic for Debian? If it is bad for MPL, then it is bad for QPL too, right? dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't call it The code under it in the main archive is there under the claim that it's currently in the process of being dual-licensed under the GPL, so it should be very likely. (We probably agree that such a relicensing is taking far too long for a DFSG- fixing grace period, even for Mozilla.) Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main, that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled? I maintain firebird2[1] packages and I'd be very badly surprised if I'd have to ask for its removal. firebird is licensed under Interbase Public license (IPL), and new files are under Initial Developer Public License. Both of them are MPL-clones with all the nasty source-of-venue and keep-source-available-12-months clauses. See them at the Copyright link at [1] (too long to be posted here) Relicensing is not an option IMHO, at least for firebird2. I have very bad feelings about asking Borland to change their license :-( dam [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/firebrid2.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main, that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled? I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free. That does mean I agree that all software only available under the MPL has to be relicensed or removed. I don't have the energy or motivation to actually try to push for this (also, IANADD), but if Mozilla officially I am not a DD either. I maintain firebird2 for a couple of months. Francesco Loverigne is sponsoring the uploads. I maintain firebird2[1] packages and I'd be very badly surprised if I'd have to ask for its removal. firebird is licensed under Interbase Public license (IPL), and new files are under Initial Developer Public License. Both of them are MPL-clones with all the nasty source-of-venue and keep-source-available-12-months clauses. See them at the Copyright link at [1] (too long to be posted here) Do you agree that the license is non-free? (It sounds like you do, calling those clauses nasty and all.) I call it unfriendly. I'd be a lot happier it firebird2 was under GPL or BSD-like license. I hate reading tens of pages of legal text that I barely understand. As of being DFSG-free, I have mixed feelings. I see marginal truth in the interpretation of the source-of-venue clause as a hidden cost. The other main concern (12 months availability of source code, or 6-months if new version is released) imposes restrictions on the archive that I beleive are unfullfilable at the moment (and in forseeable future). Breaking this requirement can be avoided by mirroring the MPL-licensed parts of the archive somewhere that this requirement can be satisfied. Add to this that the company I work for needs firebird for its business and you'll see why I put my efforts in maintenance of firebird, despite the unpleasant license. Hopefully, this clarifies my position enough. dam signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: To MPL or not.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 George Danchev wrote: On Saturday 17 September 2005 13:45, MJ Ray wrote: Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate. http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt I think MPL is doomed. Nothing to comment about it. My question is: Will FlameRobin be accepted in main? Only ftpmasters can say for sure. I think this is a practical problem for ftpmasters and mirror operators: 3.2. Availability of Source Code. [...] and I think this is a lawyerbomb: 3.4. Intellectual Property Matters Or should I try to convince upstream to change the license? I think so, if you can. Might be a difficult sell, though. Is IDPL 1.0 more DFSG-friendly than MPL 1.0? (I make this assumption because noone objected against recently uploaded firebird2) What are the differences? That assumption probably isn't reliable. Agreed. This could be classified as legal bug. About IDPL: #11 - choice-of-venue - bad. #13 - multiple-licensed code - look promising. We should try to convince upstream to double licensed the whole thing with GPL. Thank you both for sharing your opinions. I'll see what I can do in convincing upstream of FlameRobin/IBPP to at least dual-license their work. I'll have to achieve the right attitude and find the right words, though. dam - -- Damyan Ivanov 0x9725F63B Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 ICQ 3028500 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDLmX4Hqjlqpcl9jsRAt8BAJ9MJcoN6XgQI9Eq39b15kdC//e6QgCfRCqU R71IaecJyG2p4VUs7xBb0zM= =8ecx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To MPL or not.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I've packaged FlameRobin - wx GUI for manipulating Firebird databases. Upstream: www.flamerobin.org The upstream source is licensed under Initial Developer Public License 1.0. There is also an external library, which source is included in upstream and which is licensed under MPL 1.0. IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate. http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt I've recently prepared an updated package for firebird2 - the Firebird server and associated libraries and utilities. It is also licensed under IDPL 1.0 and the upload (kindly sponsored by Christohper Martin) was accepted in main. My question is: Will FlameRobin be accepted in main? Or should I try to convince upstream to change the license? Is IDPL 1.0 more DFSG-friendly than MPL 1.0? (I make this assumption because noone objected against recently uploaded firebird2) Thanks for your advice, dam - -- Damyan Ivanov 0x9725F63B Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 ICQ 3028500 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDK76OHqjlqpcl9jsRAnKbAKCgt2Io4YtptH5/JiEX+j6AI62WUwCgvh6p Zy1exlY4fyOgWa7Ae1RpGro= =U3p0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DBD::InterBase licence
--[Cc: me, I am not subscibed]-- Hi, I am considering DBD::InterBase perl module and I am stuck with its license. (http://search.cpan.org/src/EDPRATOMO/DBD-InterBase-0.43/InterBase.pm) -- Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Edwin Pratomo You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file, with the exception that it cannot be placed on a CD-ROM or similar media for commercial distribution without the prior approval of the author. -- IMHO the above exception seems to contradict with first clause of DFSG: Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Since I am not a lawer, and since the policy suggests to ask here if in doubt, I am asking for your opinion. Is the above license DFSG-compliant or not? thanks, dam --[Cc: me, I am not subscibed]-- -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993 fax: +359(2)920-0994 mobile: +359-88-856-6067 ICQ: 3028500 Y!M: dam3028500 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DBD::InterBase licence
MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-06-15 14:23:06 +0100 Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file, with the exception that it cannot be placed on a CD-ROM or similar media for commercial distribution without the prior approval of the author. This seems confused. GPL+non-comm-dist is not satisfiable by anyone but the author IIRC (so why bother stating it?), so that leaves Artistic+non-comm-dist, which is still non-free. It might even be unable to go in non-free, as or similar media looks like a huge lawyerbomb. Is any disk similar to a CD-ROM? Is it if that disk is in a server connected to the internet and sent over paid-for-transfer connections? Big mess, yes. I'll try to contact the author(s) and see if they can reconsider the license. Interestingly enough, in the README the evil additions are missing... just Artistic/GPL. Blah. thanks again, dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993 fax: +359(2)920-0994 mobile: +359-88-856-6067 ICQ: 3028500 Y!M: dam3028500 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
