Re: free source code which requires non-free tools to build (dscaler modules for tvtime)
* That which is in main must be buildable and usable solely with packages also in main (IOW, main is a closure); Really? Does that mean that the Windows specific parts of GCC must be removed from the tarball? Or does it only apply to programs, so if coreutils provides a 1k helper program that only compiles on OpenBSD, we can't ship an unaltered source tarball? At the very least, I'm sure I can find DOS batch files and other build programs designed to run on DOS/Windows in Debian. It seems rather excessive to say that every bit of code in Debian must be compilable on Debian; as long as it's free, and the code we're using is buildable and usable soley with packages in main, why is the other (free) code an issue? __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
There are just two points in this flow, where intentional (not as side effect of other considerations) efforts (not including no-doing) to remove inapropriate texts can be qualified otherwise: begin (author), and end (reader, user). All other should be considered censorship. So if you get a website, you'll happily put up all the racist screeds that are sent to you? I, as user of Debian, do not want to audit each and every package to be aware if package mantainer delete some essential document he finds inappropriate for his beliefs. If you're paranoid like that, then you're out of luck. Debian's maintainers are under no obligation to include any document in their package, no matter what the outcome of this debate. util-linux's maintainer removed the program and documentation for generating sacred dates for the Discordian religion in one release. It was his choice, and even knowing about it, there is little anyone else can do about it besides appealing to the maintainer. If manual author is a honoured chairman of KKK - I want to know about this. If author is activist of legalize marijuana movement - I also want to know about this Again, what does that have to do with invariant sections? The author is under no obligation to add that to his manual. More importantly, just because it's part of the manual, doesn't mean anything -- it could have been part of the GNU Awk manual, and one section on regexes was taken to use in the Fortran 2052 manual written by totally different people. (Not that that would happen, because nobody is going to carry the invariant sections for that, but that's part of the problem of the GFDL.) __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: Re: A possible GFDL compromise
But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of existed copyright laws) makes this difference. What differences the law, made by people who never heard of free software and probably had their pen guided by people from large proprietary software companies, is of little relevance to what we should do here. Difference, based not on the structure of work, but on its function, btw. There's not much point in writing a literate program if it's going to be proprietary. Since few copyright suits approach these details anyway, courts probably haven't been called on to split those hairs. Since we interpret the theoritical and deal with solely software and software-related things, it's a problem we have to deal with. And in some other cases you should not ignore it, even if you can, because such difference benefits you. That's the argument - should we or should we not ignore it? Just stating your side without evidence isn't useful. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally, affects only professional distributors, there was little or no problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so large, that it affect the rights and interests of users and authors. I don't understand how copyright has grown? It's always been about the rights and interests of authors - that's theoritically who the copyright law is for. It still doesn't affect pure users. It just happens that during the duration of copyright law it's gone from a time when copying a book meant owning a printing press, to running off a few copies at Kinko's, to making an unlimited number of copies effortlessly* and cheaply from your computer. * The first copy may be difficult - though easier then ever, but the next 10,000 are a breeze. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we would have the old, 1904-1912-style copyright laws, there would be much less problems with copyright. For example, the computer software become copyrightable only in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense. And if that were not true, it's unlikely we'd have the Internet Age as we know it. If there were no copyright law on software, there would be few general purpose computers available to consumers, because no company is going to write a program, just for eveyone else to copy it legally as they will. (You'll note that few companies release code under the BSD, except hardware companies.) Much better to produce a dedicated word processor that's much harder to copy. It's not a change to the spirit of the law; it's a change to the letter of the law to deal with new issues. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Documentation in not a software. This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which turns software into documentation? What about the numerous other times documentation is embedded into source code or source code is embedded into documentation? What about literate programming? There is no any one-way transformation from the source to the binary. It so happens that I do a lot of work for Project Gutenberg, and have experience in this matter. Our output - no output I've seen to anything meaningfully called source - is not convertable into the original. We lose a lot of book related detail, and even stuff that may or may not be relevant like fonts and font sizes. The original in this digital age is maybe the result of a lossy conversion from an original that was marked up with content orientated tags to a paper format or a more presentation orientated format. HTML - ASCII loses information and has no reliable reverse transformation even for the information it doesn't loose. On the flip side, the transformation from the source to the binary for programs is not one-way. You can turn that binary back into source - look at dozens of Java disassemblers, and the theory is the same for any source-binary language. if you can read the document, you always, technically, can OCR it. No. OCR programs only work at DPIs and quality levels much higher then the human threshold. And only if they can get images, which is may be hard to do for a proprietary reader. 72 or 100 DPI isn't high enough to OCR from, anyway. it takes no more than 24-48 man\hours to completely OCR a large 500-700pages book. For a simple novel, yes. A computer software manual would be much harder. How long would it take to turn ls back into a reasonable facsimile of the source code? Probably not a whole lot longer, given a skilled programmer. A simple quantitive difference does not a qualitative difference make. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very similar. Because you conceal from users the information from creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against the will both the user and creator. First, let's be honest here. The number of users who will be annoyed by the wasted disk space probably outnumber the number of users who want the GNU manifesto attached to every GNU manual. It is in the nature of users to be pragmatic. The number of users who really want to see the Adobe EULA is much lower. Furthermore, the Adobe EULA, being a license document, is moot. Taken to the extreme, a program which happens to search through your files for porn and emails it back to the upstream is performance art, and therefore should not be touched. More classic free speech would be a program that pops up a box if you run it on a non-free system and reads to you the GNU manifesto before letting you do anything. Would we tolerate that as free software? I sure wouldn't. If an author wants to tack his lecture onto his free manual for free software, I expect the same rights, to delete the annoying and space-wasting parts. More importantly, what happens when Joe Bob's pop-mail 0.1 becomes ESR's fetchmail 179.3? Free software means that can happen; but your definition won't let that happen for free documentation, because Joe Bob hated guns and put a thirty page manifesto to that effect in his 'free' documentation, making it unusable for ESR's fetchmail. I guess ESR could toss in a thirty page manifest about how guns are good, but I'd rather not see a flame war in my manual. That is the nature of free software and free documentation, to put Debian under our control, to let things go beyond one solitary point of control and one opinion. It may, also, be copyright infringement, of course. That's why we're having this argument, because we can't go around breaking licenses. Duh. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman' game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps through a command-line option) by every derived program? It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence of such code. How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangman program affect the normal use of the program more then a large manifesto affect the normal use of the manual? If you don't know that ls --hangman brings up a hangman program and don't look at the code, you'll never know it's there, unlike a manifest, which is always hanging in your face, appearing in searches, and driving up the cost of printed versions. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Brian T. Sniffen, on 2003-08-22, 13:54, you wrote: [...] Whew, I though this was a list for serious discussion, but some participants obviously have to reach a certain age first... *plonk* Joerg I, for one, didn't find his argument juvenile at all. I agree with him; you answered the question is the GNU FDL DFSG-Free with yes, because I feel the GFDL is 'free enough'. It's not an answer to the question, and it's not a useful answer--if I believe it's free enough, and you don't, who is to decide? There's a reason for the bureaucratic following of iron rules; I want to know that if I create a license for a program it will get the same treatment as when RMS does, and I want to know that when I use a program that the license doesn't exclude short people because someone thought that was free enough. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/SW/tNaJ6ty5U78YRArGiAJ4u07fI0qzJ7pHUNoBoTWpclJjF8gCfeOlE ArE0sibshFymzvNH9asAPe8= =JOkV -END PGP SIGNATURE- (And because I working with a clumsy webmail system, the signed document is also attached in hopes that it will be readable.) __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/ survey2.gz Description: application/gzip
Re: New EULA of UnrealIRCd
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:07:15PM +, Wookey wrote: [ It's possible that this is different in American English - much as they don't distinguish beteen 'ensure' (make sure) and 'insure' (buy insurance), using 'insure' for both? In which case if the EULA is written by/for Americans then it would be correct, but would be wrong if considered in British English. ] ‘affect’ and ‘effect’ is a distinction made by American English — as is ‘insure’ and ‘ensure’, for that matter. I see ‘ensure’ much more often then ‘insure’ in American English. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 01:09:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:54:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: You apparently don't want to listen to the real issues, but prefer to argue agains your own delusions about how the argument goes. [...] Man, you're way out. [...] That is bullshit. Quit fighting strawmen, or shut up. [...] More BS. Until you can settle down I'm not going to discuss this with you. I notice how you cut your writing which he was replying to. It certainly helped making your response seem justified. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:24:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] I notice how you cut your writing which he was replying to. It certainly helped making your response seem justified. Sorry, justified? What I meant, was that Branden cut all his statements that you responded to, leaving just your responses, which were harsh out of context. It made his response _appear_ justified. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:40:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: Alright, then consider this. Since a word list in a dictionary has a questionable copyright, it must be removed from a dictionary. Then, people notice some common words no longer exist in the dictionary, so they add them. Eventually, every missing word will be added back to the dictionary, so that the end result is identical to the original. That’s quite an assumption; I seriously doubt it. Assuming that the words removed were not in any of the other word lists used, then they weren’t all that common. And assuming that words flow in at a steady rate, a large number of new words will get added that weren’t in the original, many of the words in the original won’t get suggested at all, and I would expect that some of the words in the old word‐lists might get suggested but turned down as unsuitable. Have you ever heard of two original novels independently written that were identical to each other? No, that's inconceivable. Identical, no. But many hackneyed or strongly genre‐bound novels do turn out increadibly similar to each other. But it's completely conceivable for two independently compiled dictionaries to be identical, or very nearly so. I wouldn’t describe it as likely. The choice of words (do you add cwm? bakress? ye? luculent? cromulent? boxen? virii? f**k? The spelling without the astericks? I can see large debates on each of those words) and the large selection mean that any two wordlists are probably going to have significant differences in the set of words included. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:34:50PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: It was a scenario to consider, which was completely possible. I didn't suggest it would happen in this particular case. What if the offending word list contained only the words the, if, and. Of course those words would be immediately replaced. And they didn’t occur in any other list? If that was what the list included, then we wouldn’t be having this argument; there is no copyright covering wordlists including “the, if, and” simply because it’s not reasonable. Identical, no. But many hackneyed or strongly genre‐bound novels do turn out increadibly similar to each other. Word-for-word identical? Are you on fucking crack? Are you? I understand what “Identical, no” means. But close enough that if you produced a work that similar to one of Harlan Ellison’s, you would be hit by a copyright‐infringement suit before it got to your publisher. I wouldn’t describe it as likely. The choice of words (do you add cwm? bakress? ye? luculent? cromulent? boxen? virii? f**k? The spelling without the astericks? I can see large debates on each of those words) and the large selection mean that any two wordlists are probably going to have significant differences in the set of words included. Don't waste time with retarded suggestions that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. This is the heart of the matter. Should ‘cromulent’ be part of the wordlist? Despite not having a well‐defined meaning, it has a well‐defined spelling and currently common usage among a reasonably large group of people. That’s a creative decision there. Is ‘virii’ an acceptable spelling? Is ‘bakress’? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:12:31AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Note that a law could be more restrictive than the WIPO/Berne's (I take it from your interpretation that the US law is) but it cannot be more permissive (sp?). Sure it can. There may be a big hairy mess when someone realizes this, and it goes to an international court, and then back to the law making body to revise the law if it so chooses, and others can try sanctions if they choose not to; but the law, not the treaty is what holds. Of course it is. Any author, at any time, as holder of the copyright of his original work can change the license of his work and previous work and turn it into a non-DFSG work. Example: packet filtering code in OpenBSD. The way the packet filtering license debacle happened, is because there existed a reading of the license that meant it was never DFSG, and the upstream held to that reading. Contrary to what people might think, not only can I chance the license of version X, I can change the license of version X minus 1, X minus 2, X minus 3... You can certainly offer it under a new license; but normally you can't retract the old license. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Iff the author authorised a translation, the translation *can* be published under a different license (DFSG free in the case) since the copyright holder is not the original author, it's the translator. The translator and the author share copyright under copyright law. So No they don't. Please read the Berne law. They can have their own copyright. I read the law; it has its own copyright, but the copyright in the older work still subsists in it. No, it's not a clear reading of the law, but it's a reading of the law, and consistent with what I know elsewhere. Take It's a Wonderful Life, for example. It fell out of copyright, but the music that was part of it still retained its own copyright, meaning that the movie as a whole can't be played or redistributed. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Iff the author authorised a translation, the translation *can* be published under a different license (DFSG free in the case) since the copyright holder is not the original author, it's the translator. The translator and the author share copyright under copyright law. So it's not the translator's unilateral choice what license to use. I don't debate the fact that the translation can have a different license from the original; it does concern me that the original authors may not have agreed with that copyright. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
Re: Fwd: GNU VCG
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:25:40AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: VCG is apparently an alternative to graphviz, that they plan to link into every GNU program, because actually outputting files, so that you could run them through other programs is bad; someone, somewhere, might actually use that data in a non-approved way. They might forget to put a license on their perl script, say. Huh? The FSF doesn't want to output data from GCC, for example, because someone could pipe it into a non-free program and connect them that way. This is why the C backend isn't integrated into GCC, because the whole point of it is so the output can be run into the Sun C compiler which optimizes better. Apparently this is being taken to the extreme; they would like to integrate VCG with make and m4 so that you can get a graphical view of your makefile or whatever. But instead of outputing VCG-format files, which can be manipulated by other programs (say, an ad-hoc Perl script, or a program from Evil-Evil Soft), they want to link in VCG. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. / A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
Re: Fwd: GNU VCG
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:28:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: What's VCG? An freely-licensed alternative? What's the point of contention? Hmm? Your comment heads up bug #158529; VCG is a package in main, that has deliberately obfuscated code. It seems that James Michael DuPont and the Free Software Foundation has managed to get the source, and are releasing it as a GNU project. VCG is apparently an alternative to graphviz, that they plan to link into every GNU program, because actually outputting files, so that you could run them through other programs is bad; someone, somewhere, might actually use that data in a non-approved way. They might forget to put a license on their perl script, say. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. / A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
Re: Free documentation using non-free preprocessor
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 11:43:08AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: Indeed, you may have to fork it anyway, since any Debian-specific changes to the documentation will have to be made to the HTML/texinfo files and not the Scribe files in order to be useful to Debian. It's a standard; it's unlikely we'll be doing any real changes to it. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. / A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
Re: license questions.
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 04:54:01AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 18:11, Martin Schröder wrote: * The work may go out of copyright. See above. 70 years after death of the author. Oral arguments a are today! In the US; of course, 70 years after death of the author isn't particularly global, either. Several nations don't recognize international copyright; others range from life + 25 years (e.g. Sudan) throught life + 50 years (e.g. Berne convention nations; Canada, Australia, Poland, etc.) through life + 70 years (e.g. EU nations) and up to life + 80 years (e.g. Columbia). See http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. / A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
Re: Re: license questions.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:37:00PM +0200, Fredrik Persson wrote: In my case, I've considered a lot of ways of looking at things and I've come to the conclusion that the FSF philosophy is a good one, that I like. I assure you that I've looked nigh and far, so short-sighted is not something I can agree with you on. As another viewpoint: I'm not nessecarily gungho on the whole FSF philosophy. But free software gives us the freedom to let Debian and Redhat and Ada Core Technologies exist, and I find that cool. I also find it cool the way that free software lets programs grow. The world did not need yet another Unix kernel in 1992. But because of free software, that kernel became the greatest of all. Cygnus (past times), RedHat, Suse, Ada Core Technologies, Apple, Be, AMD and Intel have all helped make GCC one of the greatest compilers ever. A good free program can grow after you've stopped taking care of it, can grow far outside what you would have been capable of growing, and can grow even after you're dead. And unlike a commerical program, which can do that, there's at least one branch always under your direct control; Linus can still release Linux 2.5.183, no matter how many people have made forks or how many people are using them. Yes, commerical software helps pay the bills; freeware lets you keep absolute control. But free software can let your program be something amazing; not just yet another C compiler, or yet another Un*x kernel, but one of the best. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. / A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
Re: TeX Licenses teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
At 04:56 PM 8/8/02 -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: Thomas, the wishes of Knuth need not to be divined. He expressed them quite clearly. Why do not you read some FAQ, say, http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=TeXfuture You think that's clear? The only thing pertinent to the argument, and certainly not making a legal statement is Knuth wants TeX to be frozen at version pi when he dies; thereafter, no further changes may be made to Knuth's source. This doesn't make clear what TeX covers, nor what can be done with it. Depending on how you read Knuth's source, it could be a very lax license (Do whatever you want with this code, just add a note saying you modified the code if you did so.), or something prohibiting the distribution of anything but the original web in any form, including binary.
Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
At 08:49 PM 8/5/02 -0400, Joe Drew wrote: On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 14:49, Joe Drew wrote: Has there been any resolution of this issue? Is it safe to close these bugs? It seems there has been no resolution, but this is an issue we cannot afford to ignore. Why? Honestly, we won't be the first to get sued - no blood from a turnip, and all that. If and when Thompson tries to enforce its claims on Free operating systems, then we worry. But worrying about every little patent that _may_ cover what we're working on is just too limiting.
Bug#155396: ITP: iso-codes -- Collection of ISO code lists and their translations
Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-04 Severity: wishlist * Package name: iso-codes Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.saorleir.com/iso-codeshttp://www.saorleir.com/iso-codes * License : GPL Description : Collection of ISO code lists and their translations This package is (to be) a collection of ISO code lists: - ISO 639 Language codes - ISO 3166 Country codes - ISO 3166-2 country code subdivisions - ISO 4217 Currency codes and their translations (50+ languages so far). This is very problematic. First place, I don't see where we can distribute ISO 3166-2 _at all_. See http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/ where ISO 3166-2 is only offered for sale. Secondly, I don't see how we can relicense the others - under an indeterminate license - and their derivatives (translations) under the GPL. It also seems counter-productive; more than GPL programs need to use these.
Re: libreadline
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 09:18:24AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: I think one has to distinguish here: GPL-libraries that have something unique, so that anyone wants to use the, are good to be GPLed as they push GPL-compatible licences. What I think is the annoying part of the OpenSSL-GnuTls problem is that OpenSSL is the bad guy, This is debatable (and note that you don't have to be infatuated with the GPL to become involved with Debian), and off topic. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CUPS and OpenSSL
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:44:03PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: The short synopsis: CUPS is GPL and can link against OpenSSL. Easy Software Products has provided me with a license clause to handle that situation. What do you think? OPENSSL TOOLKIT LICENSE EXCEPTION In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Easy Software Products grants the following special exception: Easy Software Products explicitly allows the compilation and distribution of the CUPS software with the OpenSSL Toolkit. The requirement for disclosure of the use of OpenSSL in CUPS-derived software is not deemed by Easy Software Products to constitute a violation of the distribution terms of the GNU GPL, since the GNU GPL specifically requires acknowledgement of the original copyright holder in derived works. I'd think it would be better to drop the last six lines; legally, all it can do is complicate any dispute. However, in any situation not involving lawyers filing brief and counter brief with a judge, it's the same thing. I don't see any problem with it. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote: Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL. It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a court to actually force him to comply with law. In either case, he is violating the law. He still has some rights to his derivative work, they aren't completely held by the original authors, so it would be a mistake to treat the derivative work as GPL'ed and copy it before the court forced license compliance Not much of a mistake; unless he made clear that it wasn't GPLed, you could reasonably claim that you made the assumption that he was acting legally. Most judges aren't amused with cases where the plaintiff was acting illegally and not in good faith. (assuming it chose to). A judge that doesn't enforce the clear law - and there would be no legal question here - is liable to face impeachment pretty quickly. In a case like this, with few emotional issues or legal questions involved, a judge is probably going to quickly rule against the copyright violator, and go on to a serious case. Assuming that the copyright violator was stupid enough to go that far; all GPL license questions have been settled out of court, because getting hauled into court is an expensive risky proposition. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote: On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote: A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases. Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it; lacking direct permission (rather painful for the kernel), you have to distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it. Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable entity. Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel. That makes it a derivative work of the kernel. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 01:15:23PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches for the kernel, right? in this case, does he have to let people know exactly which patches are applied? He has to provide source if you get the kernel. (Binary modules are okay; binary patches aren't.) He doesn't have to let people know which patches are applied; he can just give you the kernel source and let you figure it out. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote: No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases. Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it; lacking direct permission (rather painful for the kernel), you have to distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EDICT, GPL
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:55:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: (CC to d-legal; it's related, at least due to edict-el, and they're a lot better at this topic than I am.) It's much easier if you provide some context when you CC like this. Does this prevent plain GPL software from using the EDICT? No. Look, for example, at Quake. It's GPL, but at least for a long period of time (and arguably still today) there is only one useable data set, and it was non-free. The license of the data could forbid use with a GPLed program, but could not prohibit the GPLed program, as that's a seperate entity. (I had trouble convincing RMS that non-software didn't really fit under the GPL.) The GPL isn't the greatest license for non-software. The principles of the GPL - right to modify and distribute, rejection of right to take proprietary - are very relevant to non-software, though, and the GPL is a decent lazy-man's way of applying them. What exactly was the question here? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EDICT, GPL
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 04:05:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: Did it [Quake] actually do this? It had distribution restrictions, of course (which could bump the game itself in contrib, lacking any free datasets), but are there also restrictions on what kinds of programs can use the data, as there are here? No. I was just using Quake as an example of a free program that had non-free data; as far as I know, ID didn't care what you used the data with, so long as you paid for it. What exactly was the question here? (c, i) Permission is granted: ... to use these files as part of software which is distributed free-of-charge ... It's a bitch of a requirement, and probably gets violated all the time with stuff like Debian contrib on CheapBytes disks. But that couldn't affect the license on the code, unless it compiled it in. (Yes, I realize it's a moot point in this case.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: openssl and GPL
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:15:09PM +1000, Brian May wrote: 1. What is the problem? I have read the GPL, and cannot recall the problem. According to the top of /usr/doc/openssl/copyright, openssl has a dual BSD style license. I haven't heard of problems linking GPL code with BSD code before. So why is this different? They both have advertising clauses, which means it can't be linked with GPL code. 2. Is URL:http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL wrong? ie. the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part of the normal operating system distribution. Yes, it does state that. The restrictions on it, however, are somewhat confusing, and leads many of us to believe that Debian can't distribute GPL'ed code linked with it in main. For one thing, putting it on the same CD as libssl wouldn't be possible, as then that component itself [libssl, in this case] accompanies the executable. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Crypto++ licencing
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:14:46PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: It is probably fine. The comment about public domain is only if you provide the changes to Wei Kai. And without an explicit copyright. It doesn't stop anybody from doing anything, except for the dubious pratice of sending around code without a copyright statement and objecting when people use it. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Legal status of chess game collections
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 07:20:52PM +0200, Lukas Geyer wrote: However, the gnuchess book consists of raw game scores, so my conclusion is that it is not subject to copyright and it is in the public domain. (As far as I know, the gnuchess book was not put together with some unique criteria, was it, Simon?) Any objections? Of course it was put together with unique criteria. He made some choices, and unless they were very simple, they would qualify as unique criteria. It shouldn't matter, unless the compilers can't be found or are no longer interested in releasing it under a free license. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:57:22PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: debian/copyright also includes upstreams response to my queries, which you conveniently failed to include. In that mail, Mark Kilgard makes it quite clear that the user certainly has a right to modify his code. I'm sorry; the changelog didn't lead me to believe that debian/copyright had changed. I'm sorry I made that assumption. But let's look at that change: Regarding bug#131997: From: Mark Kilgard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Jamie Wilkinson' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: GLUT license Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:39:29 -0800 Jamie, An an open bug against GLUT regarding the license? That is so Richard-Stallman-open-source-zealot-idiotic. You have a bug against a licensee? Funniest thing I heard all day. What would it mean for someone to not have the right to modify the code? Are you saying I'm going to keep someone from editing GLUT source files on their own hard drive? Exactly how would I do that? Better yet, why would I even care? I wrote GLUT to make it easy for anyone to learn how to program in OpenGL and make a cool demo that can port easily, etc. I have absolutely no interest in some your social contract or whatever your agenda happens to be. If GLUT is useful, make it available; if your ideology gets in the way of that, not my problem. - Mark So what does this change? I still don't know if we could get sued for changing glut_teapot to produce a Debian swirl. We don't care about modifying GLUT source code on the hard drive; we need to know we can modify it and distribute it. -- David Starner / Давид Старнэр - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc.
Re: license evaluation
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:51:36PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote: Does the following liscense fall under the Debian Social Contract such that it could be distributed in main? If not, how could this package be distributed with Debian? http://www.vovida.com/About/license.html I don't see why not. Was there anything you were worried about? -- David Starner / Давид Старнэр - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc.
Re: Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
reopen 131997 thanks * GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free, see debian/copyright (Closes: #131997) The headers say /* Copyright (c) Mark J. Kilgard, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998. */ /* This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and is provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied. This program is -not- in the public domain. */ and debian/copyright says NOTICE: The OpenGL Utility Toolkit (GLUT) distribution contains source code published in a book titled Programming OpenGL for the X Window System (ISBN: 0-201-48359-9) published by Addison-Wesley. The programs and associated files contained in the distribution were developed by Mark J. Kilgard and are Copyright 1994, 1995, 1996 by Mark J. Kilgard (unless otherwise noted). The programs are not in the public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing fees. These programs are provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied. . That's not a DFSG-free license - there's no right to modify given. I've been told that the author basically means the X11 license, but if so, then he needs to state that, and that needs to be included in the package. -- David Starner / Давид Старнзр - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc.
Re: Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
Apparently, the maintainer of Glut hasn't been changed yet. So I'll cc you directly. (Sorry for the extra copies, James.) On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:41:21PM -0600, David Starner wrote: reopen 131997 thanks * GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free, see debian/copyright (Closes: #131997) The headers say /* Copyright (c) Mark J. Kilgard, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998. */ /* This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and is provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied. This program is -not- in the public domain. */ and debian/copyright says NOTICE: The OpenGL Utility Toolkit (GLUT) distribution contains source code published in a book titled Programming OpenGL for the X Window System (ISBN: 0-201-48359-9) published by Addison-Wesley. The programs and associated files contained in the distribution were developed by Mark J. Kilgard and are Copyright 1994, 1995, 1996 by Mark J. Kilgard (unless otherwise noted). The programs are not in the public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing fees. These programs are provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied. . That's not a DFSG-free license - there's no right to modify given. I've been told that the author basically means the X11 license, but if so, then he needs to state that, and that needs to be included in the package. -- David Starner / Давид Старнзр - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- David Starner / Давид Старнзр - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc.
Re: The old DFSG-lemma again...
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 10:51:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: This would mean that we would have to stop distributing the Emacs manual, which has always contained such invariant sections. As has the GCC manual, at least since 1994. (Funding Free Software) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: Fwd: Re: License of OPP and smith#
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 02:06:34PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I place the email below in a text file and include it with the package, would that meet the DFSG? My past packages have included source code GPL comments, so I'm unsure how this kind of situation should be documented. Obviously one extreme solution is to demand he PGP sign a statement and have him edit all his source code to BSD license it, but I don't want to annoy him. Just including an email has been done before. I'd like to see the text of license (the original BSD release was under one license (4 clause), after many years they changed it to a second (3 clause), and I understand some in the BSD projects use a third (2 clause), all by the name of the BSD license). The source code's not a big deal, and a PGP signature is sort of pointless; I suspect more legal danger from it possibly not being his code than him possibly not being the person who posted it. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: APL LGPL GPL
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others may have been private), that it is OK to license the software GPL as long as the used APL libraries are part of the distribution on which it is installed, right? Debian has so far ignored that clause, since many of us feel that it leads to too many questions to be worth it, and that it's fundamentatly a copout for a Free OS to use it. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: Mp3-decoders also patented?
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:35:42AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: It. Fraunhofer is an institute (or society, whatever -- Fraunhofer Society for advancement of applied Research), not a person. The relevant patent number is US5579430. But does it cover decoding? From everything I've heard, it only covers encoding, and Fraunhofer is making idle threats about decoding. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: OpenOffice and Java
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:10:10PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: On Oct 21, David Starner wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote: With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in contrib nor in non-free. It can be placed in contrib. free packages which require ... packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution (interesting that it can't require a package in non-us, but it can require one not in the archive.) FWIW, OpenOffice will install and run without Java on the system, at least if you use the binaries at openoffice.org. There's no reason why we can't have a separate openoffice-java in contrib for people that want the Java support. According to Peter, they won't build without a version of Java we don't have in the archive, even in non-free. So the whole thing has to go into contrib and be manually built on each system. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: OpenOffice and Java
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote: With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in contrib nor in non-free. It can be placed in contrib. free packages which require ... packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution (interesting that it can't require a package in non-us, but it can require one not in the archive.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:50:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote: A copyright license is a copyrightable work. Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion, please. It's a large chunk of text, that took significant creative work to make. Why wouldn't it be copyrightable? I don't see why it's any different from any other textual work of the same size and creative effort. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: DFSG status of DFARS clause?
On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 10:44:57PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: particularly if the entire project was government financed. I could only see this as a problem with something that was GPLed or otherwise copylefted (ex: GPLed software that is financed by the govt could be modified by the govt and combined with non-GPL-compatible software); I don't see that as a concern. That's always the right of the copyright owner; the FSF could release a proprietary backend to GCC if they chose to. (I guess the question is: if I license software under a BSD-like license, but say in the license that people who use it to build nuclear power plants, have bad breath, or hang out with Osama bin Laden have to abide by the terms of the GPL with regards to the software, would that be non-free, even though both groups are covered by DFSG-free licenses?) We can distribute it under a free license, so I guess it would be free. I'd only accept that if there was one license everyone could use (i.e. the GPL in this case); if one group could use it under the QPL and the other under the GPL, it's not free IMO. (I once put this up on opensource-discuss (I think), with Tom Christenson and Theo de Raadt having to follow the GPL, and that was Bruce Peren's opinion at the time.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:49:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: The operant rule is simple. If we distribute it, it's software. If it's software, it has to be compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, or it can't be part of Debian. Then start reporting bugs on packages. I'd suggest starting with the documentation for gcc, just to get to the heart of the matter. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote: Functional work is a different story, like software. There, modifications have to be allowed. But for logos and licenses and manuals and political statements? Sure, it'd be great to be able to make modified versions (I work on a copylefted art/literature magazine), but is it necessary? If you're going to change a program, you need to/should change the manual along with it. I certainly can see a desire to change how a program looks, or what a font includes. There's probably hundreds of non-DFSG-free data tidbits in Debian main already. Like licenses. Licenses have always been declared out of territory, since there's no need to modify them, and we don't want to argue with various authors over the license of the license. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: Licence for free ttf fonts - open source enough?
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 01:24:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Every font file format with which I am familiar permits inclusion of copyright data. Even simple ones like BDF, which, being capable of representing only bitmaps, you can't assert copyright on anyway. I've read that in countries other than the US, you can assert copyright on bitmap fonts. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: Licence for free ttf fonts - open source enough?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 11:46:19AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: On 12-Oct-2001 Erich Schubert wrote: Please CC: me on replys, i'm not subscribed to the list. I asked the author of some Freeware fonts, if he could licence them under an open source licence. This is his reply, please check the Licence below, if this classifies them open source for Debian. art and data are odd areas. The right to freely modify a work is important to free software. Best thing you can do is point him to our open source definition. I suspect free fonts will never happen, just like other art forms. I think it important to Debian that we have fully free fonts, regardless of the questions about other art or data. I and Branden and probably others would submit a serious bug on any non-free fonts in main. Many other art forms have been free. Legends, tales and jokes have been free for the history of mankind. Most of the art that Debian will be concerned with has high craftmanship aspects, which would lead me to hope that it would be more likely to be free. IMO, the reason so many fonts aren't free, is cultural; the font community has non-free license norms, like the MS-DOS/Windows programming communities (especially pre-97 or so.) Note the large number of free MetaFont fonts. We just need to convince font people that they should release under free licneses. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: Licence for free ttf fonts - open source enough?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 12:55:14PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Why don't you ask him why he won't allow the alphanumerics to be altered? If it is just that he doesn't want people to make them ugly, and thus reflect badly on him, them he can put in a clause where derived works must be given a different name. Unfortunately, It sounds a little like he wants people to get improved fonts from him, for a fee. There may not be a way to free these fonts. Other than the modifcations part, I don't see any problem with the fonts going into main. They can certainly go into non-free as is. There's also a clause about not changing the name. Since we have a clause specifically permitting forcing a name change, I'd say that not permitting a name change would be disallowed restricting modification. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: Licence for free ttf fonts - open source enough?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 10:00:42PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: But there _are_ good free fonts. Most because someone bought them off the author(s) and released them free. Like the OpenOffice fonts. A few. Maybe it would be interesting to ask font designers for the price to release their work for free ;) Or buy a font, name it after your love and then release it for free - there's lots of wired stuff to do with arts ;) The going rate is much higher than most of us would be willing to pay - I'm betting at least a thousand dollars, especially for a decent font. (How much would you sell all rights to one of your programs for?) The main fear with artists is that they won't be given credit for their work, i think. I'm not sure that being free or not will make any difference. Virtually every free license demands credit, at least in fact that your name may not be removed. Third, his additions did not fit to my style at all, broke the rythm, the symmetries etc. I think this is a big concern of a lot of font makes, which is part of the reason they don't have free licenses. Maybe we could do a sample Open Art Licence, based on the Open Music and Open Publication Licences? This could encourage artists to publish their work under these licenses. Is it really nessecary? Personally, for fonts, I was going to recommend either a simple, BSDish license, or the Araphic Font license. An Open Art License shouldn't be created unless there's actually a need. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: Licence for free ttf fonts - open source enough?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 11:48:09PM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote: Oh. Now I let my mind wander again. Anyway, what I was going to ask is this: is there a recommended license for fonts in Debian? Is the Arphic license okay? (A quick glance through it seems to say yes.) The Arphic license is okay. Debian doesn't usually recommend license; it's too contentious an issue among developers. I would recommend just offering free licenses to authors and not trying to push one free license. IMO, the XFree86 license is nice, especially if it's something that can get merged into X. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less. - Disciple, Stuart Davis
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG. Icons are not metadata. The author is metadata, as is the publisher, and when something was published. None of which we were talking about; all of which the GPL forces you to preserve on source code. You can't take package X from main, change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for packages in the public domain). But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author wrote. Have you actual examples of rants that are protected by FDL invariant sections to point at, or do you make this up while you go along? Look at the gcc info pages. Funding Free software is clearly marked uneditable at the bottom, and is also listed as invariant in the license tag (I had to look in the source file - it's not listed in the /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0-doc/copyright, nor could I find it in the info files.) GNU and Linux is not, amazing enough . . . * Acknowledgements Robert Bihlmeyer wants to thank Gnomovision for their support. They basically paid him to do nothing so he could write the Frobster3000 manual. Do you consider this DFSG-free? Yes. Is removing this less unethical than removing my name altogether? Yes, but not much. From my viewpoint, its like BSD/advertising. Not pretty, but free. Sure. I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be modifyable at least. (3) The license must allow modifications and derived works . . . No qualifications on modifications here. 4 is the patch clause, which makes no qualifactions on what can be modified, just how, except for name or version changes. It doesn't let you restrict what can be modified, and it only applies to source code. Finally, applying the Debian Free *Software* Guidelines may be a bit off, altogether. Oh, indeed! I emphatically agree. But if we're going to ignore the DFSG, I'd like some coherent consensus on acceptable licenses for documentation, instead of just ad-hoc decisions. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb, we'll still be freakin' friends. - Freakin' Friends
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:04:12PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On the other hand, licenses themselves are not subject to being licensed, thus DFSG requirements don't refer to the bogus concept of a license about a license. Why aren't licenses subject to being licensed? They are large copyrighted works; you could restrict and license a license anyway you want. The GPL has a license; it's: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Anyway, that's not what was being discussed. The question was about the large sections of text in some GNU Free Documentation License'd texts that can not be modified - for example, Funding Free Software in the gcc manual. Is that DFSG-free or otherwise permissable in main? If it is, then what about other unmodifiable texts? Where's the line, and why? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb, we'll still be freakin' friends. - Freakin' Friends
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
The notion that standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc. IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they? No. Modification to the content must be allowed ... certainly not modification to the metadata. I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG. You can't take package X from main, change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for packages in the public domain). But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author wrote. Whether something is really metadata is a matter of interpretation, and may depend on the specific case. I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, except a specific exception for name changes. Personally, I think all those people/organisations that want to protect the sancticity of their standard should just require derivative works to bear different names (or versions). I agree. I'd also like to see people stop using these stupid patch license and write-your-own-GPL licenses. But I don't see how that matters. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Adpcm code--is this licence free?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:36:03PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: Alas the code is pretty ancient (1992), and neither the code, nor the CWI pages offer references on who to contact regarding ADPCM. Anyway, I've found out the code is not only used by current Debian packages of xwave and xmp, but according to legal notices also by some commercial packages. Now I believe HP lawyers letting slip this licence into their products is a good indication that we can safely include it as well. Objections? Yes. I have no objection to letting the code in, but I do take exception to this line of reasoning. Whether or not HP does it makes no difference to us. Even it currently being in Debian is no proof of it being acceptable; every so often we come across a license that has been in Debian for years, but that isn't DFSG. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 08:55:45PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: So, should the RFCs go in non-free as well? Probably. See bug#92810, which probably needs more attention. AIUI, the GNU Open Publication License also allows authors to restrict the right of making modifications to parts of the documentation. Is that non-free, too??? There is no such thing. If you meant the GNU Free Documentation License, that one allows non-modification clauses only for non-topical chapters. So I think it is ok with DFSG. If there's an exception for non-topical chapters, then why not for standards? A non-topical chapter is more likely to get out of date than a standard, which by design is intended to be eternally fixed. In any case, the DFSG offers exceptions for neither, so the non-modification clause in the GNU FDL is not _okay_ with the DFSG. By the strict reading of the DFSG, if it is to apply to documentation and RFC's, modificiation must be allowed. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Cactvs-license
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:02:02PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: This is part of my distribution agreement with the university - I am not allowed to distribute the software to companies without a fee (which mainly goes to the university, and must be priced comparable to other commercial software). The univ. considers itself to be a copyright holder, and this was the only way to get any distribution rights. He didn't answer the non-free question yet, though. Huh? That's an answer to the non-free question, right there. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Public domain fonts?
I was looking at some fonts recently, and I was wondering if I could package them for Debian. The website (http://moorstation.org/typoasis/designers/moye/index.htm) says A couple of Stephen Moye's Public Domain fonts, but isn't put up by him. One font (Trooklern) has only the font file in the zip, with Developed by S.G. Moye 1991. Public Domain. in the copyright string (stored in the font). Goudy Hundred has a text file with no license statement, and a similar string in the copyright string. The rest fall into one or the other category - except one that has 7. I am releasing these typefaces as freeware. That's right: You don't have to pay me. I am hoping, not in vain, I trust, that you have a conscience and will not use or appropriate these typefaces to your use without giving some credit where it is due. In all events, the notice contained in the fonts must remain intact. and no license in the copyright string (this one seems to be much later than the rest - labeled 1997) and one that's broken and license-less. I realize I can't package the last two; what about the rest of them. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Public domain fonts?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: It sounds like the intention is an X11-style licence (BSD without advertising clause), but I know Debian usually insists on explicit permission to distribute modified versions for it to count as free. This is to prevent authors from coming back and clarifying (i.e. changing) the licence later. I'd find it more likely that the intent was not X11-style licensing. Few font creators have distributed fonts that can be modified. Silly, philosophical point: if the author is dead, then there is a greatly reduced risk of the author coming back and clarifying the licence, so presumably you can interpret the licence more broadly in that case. Of course, you've got the possibility of some descendent coming after you, who may have found the very concept of giving it away absurd, and is happy to take a very narrow interpretation of the license. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: License Issues of Interchange Documentation
[This really should have go to debian-legal.] From: Stefan Hornburg (Racke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll like to package the Interchange documentation. The source code is available seperately from the Interchange software and has the following licensing: ---snip--- The documentation (including the printed books available for purchase) follows Red Hat's customary documentation licensing, which is this: Copyright 2001 by Red Hat, Inc. This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, V1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/). Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder. (end) In other words, both license options A and B were included. ---snip--- IMHO opinion, this license isn't DFSG-compatible and the doc's package has go into non-free, right ? The license isn't DFSG-compatible, and it should arguably go in non-free. However, there is documentation with comparable licenses in main. There is a semi-regular flame war over the subject, but no one has ever pushed to a head. There is, however, an existing serious bug on the matter: 92810. The decision is up to you (so long as the ftp-masters don't objec.t) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The pig -- belongs -- to _all_ mankind! - Invader Zim
Re: request
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:33:46AM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote: A friend of yours has mentioned that Debian charges 1000$ for each SPAM mail. Assuming this is correct and that no other prices are given, this may easily imply that this is indeed Debian's own cost/value per mail. A certain commercial site is now listing about 450 regular mail of mine, which overall value is then of about 0.5 Million Dollars. Just because the city charges you $50 each time you litter on the streets, doesn't mean your litter is worth $50. However, there are friends out there who are not yet aware of their wealth, and are not as friendly as I am. A single broadcast message would be sufficient for one of them to have a few megabytes of lawyers' replies to it, each of them being very willing to take any risk and go all the way to sue Debian. For what? Judges are human, too, and if you bring a petty and stupid matter into court, you'll just tick them off. I seriously doubt you could get anywhere near lawyer's fees back for email, which is basically valueless. You aren't Salinger and you already agreed to distribute it to an arbitrarily large number of unknown people. Certain software companies would be very sympathetic on the matter, and would provide all the additional legal support, perhaps also for free. Ooh, invoke the Microsoft card! Microsoft really wants to take a pointless antitrust action at this point and really want to drag their name through the mud again, to possibly take out a very minor competitor. I think these messages have gotten beyond the point of productivity, and this should be my last one. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: (un)published works and email re: Email Archive Request
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:54:09AM -0400, James Miller wrote: Martin Luther King Jr.' s estate brought a successful claim of infringment for his I have a dream speech on the basis that it was unpublished within the meaning of hte statute. I think you've got it wrong. According to Project Gutenberg, which is publishing the speech and is usually pretty anal about these things: This speech has been through years of court cases to determine, in various jurisdictions, whether it was ever copyrighted, and the United States court system recently laid down their rulings that this speech had never been copyrighted, since at that time it was required to post a copyright notice on printed copies to be distributed, and this speech was distributed without such an extra (C) Copyright notice as was then required in the US. The US revised this law in 1989, an no longer requires such notice. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: request
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 12:31:54PM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote: (Incidentally, messages like those of Branden Robinson are false, are certainly not beneficial, and trigger a stiff communication; but this ultimately reflects on him.) I don't see why he's wrong. Of the things you've complained about archives, there are none that your messages would make more than the smallest dent in. You're trying to impose a burden on Debian for purely theorical reasons, which isn't a very friendly thing to do. By law, there must be a legal agreement between the author and the publisher. If no such explicit agreement exists, then the author is still the owner of the copy-rights, and can decide what to do with that material, at any time. Not quite. The author can not stop the sale (at whatever price) of existing copies of the work, nor can he stop fair-use copies, or force people to distroy existing legal copies. By posting to a mailing list, the author is exerting his right to publish, and he/she is the publisher in that very moment. One email goes into the Debian mail server, and a thousand come out. I'd say Debian is the publisher. No legal agreement exists between me and Debian. No explicit agreement. There is the argument that there is an implicit agreement. Please also make explicit the policy with Debian mailing lists, and ensure that its subscribers are notified and agree with it. You're the only person I know of who cares. The archives at lists.debian.org are sufficent hint to most people that their email will be archived - seeing a note at the bottom of that page saying your email will be archived would get a well, duh! response from me. (Which isn't to say it shouldn't be done.) I don't think we care whether the subscribers agree with; it is the way the developers like it, and if you don't want your posts archived, don't post. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: request
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:58:10PM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote: You have to understand that no person or institute owns your copyright if you do not transfer the ownership in writing via a legal document! And you have to understand that we understand that. No one's claiming your copyright, merely implicit permission to create an archive. By posting these recent messages, for example, I have just exerted my right to express my opinion, by posting to a restricted number of people, on channels that are not under the copyright of Debian. As such, this very mail, for example is still my mail, and Debian *can not* and *must not* archive it! You have been warned over and over in this thread that Debian can and will archive anything sent to their lists, and that we consider sending stuff to the list permission to do so. If you didn't want it archived, you could stop sending stuff to the lists. I guess, in liu of that, we could charge you $1000 a post for usage of our mail server, like we do spammers. I did not transfer to Debian the right to archive my mail, and I want this mail to be deleted for good. It is my right! Are you ever going to mention the arguments that it's not your right? By letting the main search sites to link all the emails of these lists, we are overloading the net! [...] There are more important things out there than Gigabytes of old Debian chats! Bah. That's the search engine's problem. If it's important, _they_ should not archive mail archives. I don't see any reason to make that decision for them. Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, I do not want Debian to archive my mail, whether it is past, present of future. You have been informed over and over that Debian will archive anything posted to its lists, and considers your posting permission. If you chose to continue using Debian resources by posting after that, I don't see why we have any obligation to remove your posts, legal or otherwise. If I wanted a permanent post, I would have written a book of memories. If you didn't want a permanent post, don't use a permanent medium like email. Try calling next time. Once you've made a permanent copy, be it on paper or hard disk, it's permanent. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: request
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:00:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:37:52PM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote: Personally, I don't see a problem. I believe that by posting a message to a mailing list that is publically archived you implicitely indicated your consent with also publically archiving the message you posted, because we have been archiving messages since the very beginning of the lists (not all of those archives have survived till today, unfortunately). We might want to put a note on lists.debian.org, pointing out that Debian reserves the right to archive any mail that comes into Debian. Frankly, copyright-wise, we may be forced to remove something from the archives if someone mailed something to list without permission of the copyright owner. By the transient nature of email, the way the material of other's email gets used in it, and the fact there's no commerical value in it, most email messages has very limited copyright protection. I think we may legally have the right to post non-commerical archives of a publicly available list hosted on our servers, with or without the above note (as always, IANAL). While the rights to post archives of the same list on an unreleated site with banner ads is a _little_ more hazy, it's not our problem. Should we honor X-No-Archive? That's a fairly standard header with this intent. PS. Please note also that the technical content of these emails is summarised in updated FAQ documents, so that these months/years old emails are of no use, and there is no purpose in allowing sites like AltaVista to index them all!!! I disagree -- there is significant value in list archives as a historical reference of the development of the Debian Project and community around it. Why shouldn't we let AltaVista archive them? I can't see any legal onus on us either way, and it's sometimes useful to find mail archives on the problem you're having. Also, I've looked up the history of the purity data in Debian before, in archives that were maybe two years old at the time. That was in no FAQ. There's a lot more than just technical content in the email. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: license for a mix of free sw + propritary stuff
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:59:02PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: epsUtils The GPL apply wit the following ammendment. In what way does the GPL apply? The author apparently wants to avoid section 2 (which requires you to distribute the program as whole under the GPL), and then tacks on an attribution clause and what is basically a patch clause. He should throw out the GPL here all together, and pick or write a license that better fits what he intends. Due to DNA I don´t have the right to publish the control sequences used by this package. You don´t have the right to make reverse enginnering in order to retrieve the control sequences send to the printer through the library rwLib.a Unless I've signed a license to that effect, in most places, I believe I do have the right to reverse engineer those control sequences. You may use the rwLib.a library for own programs and distribute them, but in all case you have to distribute also the original package epsUtils without change in the code and file content and tell explicitelly that you use this component. The following must appear: === This program use rwLib.a Author:Jean-Jacques Sarton Home Site: http://home.t-online.de/home/jj.sarton/index.html Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === An ugly patch clause and an attribution clause. Does the author understand what the GPL is, or did he just pick it because everyone else uses it? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Public Domain in Russia
I was looking at the license to mueller7accent-dict. The COPYRIGHT file reads: -- (C) 1996 S.Starostin (C) 1999-2000 E.S.Cymbalyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Download: http://www.geocities.com/mueller_dic/ Copyright: This program is licensed under the GNU GPL version 2 or later, see /usr/share/common-licences/GPL on a Debian system or http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html on the web. -- I was digging around upstream, though, and found this: -- Copyright agreement is provided in first line of the dictionary file: (C) V.K.Mueller English-Russian Dictionary, 7 Edition; State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries Moscow 1961; Free Electronic Version by S.Starostin 1996 starling.rinet.ru/download/dict.exe; Electronic Version by E.S.Cymbalyuk 1999 under GNU GPL, ver. 1.2, see latest version on www.chat.ru/~mueller_dic or www.geocities.com/mueller_dic You may download original DOS-version of the Mueller dictionary (7 Edition) for DOS from www-page of Sergei Starostin. According to the extracurial compromise between company ABBYY and publishing house Russky Yazyk, publishing house Russky Yazyk has copyrights on editions of Mueller dictionary published after 1961 only. Thus the content of Mueller dictionary published before 1961 is in public domain. S.Starostin, as the author of the first electronic version of Mueller dictionary, kindly allowed me to use his code one for any purpose. You can use my electronic version of Mueller dictionary under GNU GPL. The Russian Scientific-Technical Center Informregistr has registered the Electronic Version of Mueller Dictionary (7 Edition) on February 29, 2000. The number of State registration is 032030. -- This should be in the copyright file, right? More worrysome to me, though, is why is this in the public domain? Under Berne convention copyright law, Mueller or ABBYY or Russky Yazyk would still have copyright, unless it was deliberately given up. Does the registry number tell us anything about the copyright status? (I may be going a little paranoid here, but this upstream isn't careful in dealing with copyright issues, and the description sounds a little suspicious. What does extracurial mean, and what did he mean it to mean, anyway?) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: gnomerar
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:46:15PM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:46:41AM +0300, cooly wrote: Hi, I was wondering if you can help me or advise me. Yesterday I recived a mail from rarsoft regarding gnomerar (called gnochive now). They offered me the permision to use winrar icons ... and to host gnomerar or gnochive on their webpage (rarsoft page). I assume you aren't currently using the icons. If you want to use them, and they are stored as pngs instead of inline code, then there shouldn't be a problem. I would provide the original icons in case someone was worried about the issue. Them hosting the package can have no effect on its free software, unless you sign an agreement towards that. If you're worried, you might want to discuss that with them. What do you mean offered? This becomes a whole 'nother matter if they are making demands or threats. If you aren't using icons from winrar, they don't have a foot to stand on. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: fortunes-atheist copyright again (would be FW: Re: copyright)
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 07:37:10PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote: I currently, and intentionally, have no copyright over the fortunes collection. I encourage everyone to copy it and use it freely, and as far as your system goes, you're most certainly welcome to it. That's all we need. A full disclaimer of copyright is plenty. As for the constituent quotes, my understanding is that they are either so old that they are public domain, or else the relatively brief quoting falls under the fair use doctrine. Yes. I believe our current fortune cookies are much likely to be objected to than this collection; we have whole poems in there. I'm not sure if this would impact the way that you would package it in your system- thanks for the URL on the GNU license, and I'll take a look at it and see how it can be applied. If it needs a specific copyright statement to be included, I probably will adopt something like that, and I'll let you know as soon as I've officially applied whatever it needs to the file. I wouldn't worry about, and especially not something like the GNU license. If you feel you need a CYA license, use the BSD one; the GNU one makes a lot of distinctions that are absurd in these conditions. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Keyspan Firmware fun
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:33:09AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: Copyright (c) 1995-2000 FORE Systems, Inc., as an unpublished work. This This is what gets me. It's being distributed, in some cases by permanant media, to millions of random people, and it's unpublished? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Preferred form of work Re: Keyspan Firmware fun
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:11:33AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: The GPL defines source code in section 3: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. It doesn't address the question of _whose_ preferred form, but I think that the form actually used by the author is a very good indication. So if you entered the program with a hex editor, and fix bugs the same way, then a hex dump is the source code. What about if the preferred form changes? For example, you have two authors, one who keeps the program as a literate program and the other one who keeps it as straight source, and they convert it whenever they exchange code. Is the preferred form literate or illiterate? Can the literate author 'tangle' it and release it? Alternately, what about a program whose binary form has become the primary form of editing it? Say, some company releases one of the old Commodore or NES games under a GPL license, but doesn't release the source. Does it matter that a number of people can and are hacking on the binary? Does it make any difference if the source has been lost by now? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: ITP: ttf-japanese-kandata
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:54:02PM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote: Following may be useful as a reference point for the copyright law. If I remember correctly, basic shape of glyph is not be copyrighted since it is common to all fonts and should be legible. Also for dot matrix fonts, mere coincident does not make a violation of copyright due to limited possibility of choice. Also note that, even with new copyright law, font itself is not covered by the copyright law in Japan. (Software is covered.) Japan has not verified WIPO 1997 treaty on this typeface thing either. (That is my web search result. IANAL.) I remember reading that ADOBE created postscript fonts in such a way that they can claim them as a software in which shape is programmed into a code. (This is to make sure they keep their right under most legal system.) So copyright of fonts are slightly different issue from ordinary software copyright in legal term. What I've got of copyright law is that fonts (the actual shape) is not protectable by copyright, at least not in the US. BDF fonts probably aren't protectable, because that's just description of the actual shape. TrueType/Postscript/MetaFonts are, however, because the code is creative expression and can be done several ways to get the same result. We have fonts in Debian (roxen-fonts*) that are bitmap rips of commerical/proprietary Adobe fonts that claim that Adobe feels it's legal. So apparently Japanese and US law agree on the general points. What's the WIPO 1997 treaty, and who signed it? So far, our archive has main (legal about anywhere) and non-US (can't be distributed from the US). We'll have problems if this can't be distributed from, say, Germany - whether or not it matters for this package, other fonts may have a problem. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Preferred form of work Re: Keyspan Firmware fun
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:47:22PM -0600, Walter Landry wrote: What about if the preferred form changes? For example, you have two authors, one who keeps the program as a literate program and the other one who keeps it as straight source, and they convert it whenever they exchange code. Is the preferred form literate or illiterate? Can the literate author 'tangle' it and release it? The simple answer is that the code must be in the preferred form of the person distributing the code. But where does it say that in the GPL, or in the DFSG? That has too many funky implications for me to like that answer. If A gives code to B, the whole point of free software is that B can give it to C, but B can't, because it's in her preferred form. If a company releases the old game under the GPL, but doesn't provide the source, then they haven't really released under the GPL. No one will be able to distribute the game, because they can't also provide sources. They've released the form that people have been modifying for years. It must be the preferred form, cause there is no other form. A more realistic scenario asks whether we consider it source under the DFSG. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Copyright infringement in linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan*fw.h
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 02:13:48PM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote: i'd be inclined to leave the kernel source alone as if it's ok for AC then it should be ok for us too. That has _never_ been Debian's policy. i don't think there's much risk in doing this as about the worst that is likely to happen is a take down order. having said that i'm all for filing it as a bug, but i'd give it a fairly low priority (non-critical/wishlist). It's serious, as always. Debian shouldn't be distributing it, especially not in main. Debian always follows the licenses, and that pedantic correctness is an attractive factor for many of us. if we make a habit of respecting such licenses to the letter (usb/dvd/etc.) then we're going to end up with one very boring/unfriendly O/S indeed. (yeah your device is supported but first you need to go download a few bytes of firmware from X, and recompile a module or the kernel itself). If they don't want their hardware supported, that's their problem. If you want it, you either have a choice of downloading the code, or using a distribution that doesn't care as much about licenses, like Mandrake. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg pgpwFVrVlkRzf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Libapache-mod-backhand: load balancing Apache requests.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:31:53PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: Is there a document or email somewhere that describes a situation where Debian has had to enforce its trademarks? Did anything go beyond an email threat to pursue? I'm just worried that no one's really tried to enforce a trademark on an open source project before, in front of a judge, even if email threats worked. Why are you worried? Trademark law seems fairly simple (for laws), and open source doesn't seem to make a difference here. It's just We have this trademark, registered on the 31 of February 2002, they're using it without permission, and they ignored the a cease-and-disest we sent them. Unless you've let others use the trademark in defiance of your license (which worries me about Linux(tm)), it should be a simple case. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: License for fortunes?
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 02:40:27PM -0500, Chad Phillips wrote: My best guess is if it is just raw quotes it is not copyrightable. Where you get into a problem is where someone creates a database/collection that has some type of added value. Copyright law is designed to protect creative expression. In this case, the creative expression is the choice of which quotes to add to the file and which not to add. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: ITP: libtext-chasen-perl - ChaSen binding for perl
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:21:54PM +0900, NOKUBI Takatsugu wrote: ChaSen is a Japanese morphological analysis sytem, and it supplys API as a library. libtext-chasen-perl is ChaSen binding for perl. It is needed by Namazu for high-paformance processing Japanese text. Copyright is the following: Copyright(c) 1998, 1999 NOKUBI Takatsugu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright(c) 1997 Nara Institute of Science and Technorogy. All Rights Reserved. Use, reproduction, and distribution of this software is permitted. Any copy of this software, whether in its original form or modified, must include both the above copyright notice and the following paragraphs. Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST), the copyright holders, disclaims all warranties with regard to this software, including all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, in no event shall NAIST be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortuous action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this software. The Japanese morphological dictionary included in this system originates from ICOT Free Software. The following conditions for ICOT Free Software applies to the morphological dictionary of the system. Is this different? Is this license anywhere to be found? Each User may also freely distribute the Program, whether in its original form or modified, to any third party or parties, PROVIDED that the provisions of Section 3 (NO WARRANTY) will ALWAYS appear on, or be attached to, the Program, which is distributed substantially in the same form as set out herein and that such intended distribution, if actually made, will neither violate or otherwise contravene any of the laws and regulations of the countries having jurisdiction over the User or the intended distribution itself. ^^^ Looks like a form of the law requirement Debian's been unhappy about before. I hate to say it's non-free on such an innocuous clause, but such is how it goes. NO WARRANTY The program was produced on an experimental basis in the course of the research and development conducted during the project and is provided to users as so produced on an experimental basis. Accordingly, the program is provided without any warranty whatsoever, whether express, implied, statutory or otherwise. The term warranty used herein includes, but is not limited to, any warranty of the quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose of the program and the nonexistence of any infringement or violation of any right of any third party. Each user of the program will agree and understand, and be deemed to have agreed and understood, that there is no warranty whatsoever for the program and, accordingly, the entire risk arising from or otherwise connected with the program is assumed by the user. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg pgp8QjdwA7YYs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:03:38AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: The importance of being able to modify any particular piece of software may not always be critical to some in all cases, but as a general rule it is NECESSARY to be able to modify the code you run on your machine. It is not so necessary to be able to modify a license document or an icon or a font. Why is it necessary to be able to modify the code and not a font? People install programs (on Debian, no less) every day, where they can't modify the code. A font can have bugs, not have the features (characters) you want, or just not work the way you want. Which are really the same reasons you want to able to modify code. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:03:38AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: such a philisophical view, the technical ramifications of not allowing modification of code are simple and worrysome - usually leading to the situation we have with the people in Redmond and other software developers worldwide: You are locked into proprietary and expensive channels. Your bang-for-the-buck is inversely proportional to the dependency you have on that channel. And of course, dependency is usually at the least a linear function of time. Why is this a matter of modification of code? Do you think if the source came with every copy of Word, it would change anyone's dependence on Word? You'd still be locked in. It takes pretty much every property of free software working together to stop that. There's no reason to single out modifiability. A program under the font license in question (permitting everything but modifications) wouldn't lock you into to a propriatary and expensive channel either. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: We concluded that the main reason why we insist on the right to modify software is the need to maintain it. After carefully checking the technical, as opposed to artistic, quality of the Lucidux fonts (it is excellent, thanks to YY), we agreed that there is no reason whatsoever why we should need to modify them in the foreseeable future, and decided to include these fonts in our tree. Does it cover Latin-3? If it doesn't, then there's a number of characters that could be added in minutes with the right tools to provide for support of Esperanto, Maltese and other languages, but we can't, because of the license. Even if it covers Latin-3, there's many languages written out there in the Latin script where this extra letter or that extra letter would allow us to support the language with the font; but we can't because of the license. I believe that Chuck's attitude in the matter is typical of that of most font designers. Currently. That attitude was also true for many programmers at one time who now write free software. I hope a similar change happens with font designers. Thus, I am firmly convinced that as Free Software becomes better known in the font design community, we will receive donations of more high-quality fonts, and that these are likely to come under terms similar to those of the BH Lucidux licence. Thus, I would be very keen on seeing a carefully-written exception for fonts included in the DFSG. As you can see, the arguments above are of a purely pragmatic and technical nature (as typical of XFree86). I am not sufficiently familiar with the Debian project to understand whether you wish to be guided by considerations of this sort, or whether ideological considerations are more important. While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were put there knowing that), I find the same reasons for Free fonts as Free software. We need the ability to modify fonts - to add characters, to fix bugs, to make personal choices on characters, to convert to new formats (what if X 5.0 only supports OpenType and BDF fonts, and YY isn't interested in converting them?) - or we lose a lot of flexibility (a more ideological person would say freedom). -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Fwd: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:59:44PM +0100, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote: I have attached LICENSE to this post - hope nobody minds, it's only 3.6kb. I really need some input on this - would it be against the DFSG? I wouldn't think so, only the long description should contain the license, and README.Debian should probably contain a notice. But should it go in non-free? Or is it totally against the DFSG? What do you mean totally against the DFSG? If it's in non-free, it's against the DFSG. I am quite serious about this. In case that wasn't clear, you may not do the following things with FilterProxy: Remove naughty words Remove pornography Remove harmful ideas in any form Enforce access policies. *UNLESS* you have the express knowledge and consent of the person whose web content is being filtered. Said person must know exactly what is being filtered. This is just so that unscrupulous individuals don't install FilterProxy as a netnanny-type filtering system, and force their views on others using it. It's been said on debian-devel, but I'll say it again: non-free. This goes against the fields of endavour clause; it's not a matter of whether we approve of the use or not. (IMO, it sucks; if you want to remove pornongraphy from stuff coming into your system, you should be able to, and your kids or employees can deal.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: [Steve Lidie Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU] Re: xodometer licensing
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 12:11:21AM -0600, Sam TH wrote: Did we accept the APSL (the other major point of divergence between the OSI and the FSF)? No need to stir up trouble before its time. No one has tried to get a program under the APSL into Debian, so whether or not the APSL is DFSG-free is moot. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg pgpj3bNboFX3W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libcompface license (again)
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:56:54AM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote: On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:32:23AM +1100, James Ashton wrote: Hi, I'm maintaining the debian pkg of your compface lib, and I've talket to you before about it's license. And now ouer legal people have found another problem. The sourcefiles contains a diffrent copyright notice than the redmefile. They say: * Permission is given to distribute these sources, as long as the * copyright messages are not removed, and no monies are exchanged.=20 The problem is the last part no monies are exchanged. As you probably=20 know we do allow third party companies to produce debian CDs and sell them. So this statement would inmply that we can't have your libcompface in debian at all. I'm happy to remove the phrase `no monies are exchanged' from the source and allow distribution as per the README file. Do you need more from me than just this email? I don't think so, but I'd better let ouer legal people decide that. Thanx! That's all we need. Thanks! -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg pgpCmwx9n9DWy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MasterMind(r)
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:28:13PM +0100, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote: I plan to package gnomermind (http://gnomermind.sourceforge.net, no ITP yet). License is GPL. This game let you play MasterMind(r) on you computer. It seems that MasterMind is a registered trade mark. Maybe a silly question, but I ask when I'm not sure: Is it safe to package this? Do you know if it is possible that the people owning the trademark has any rights/patents to the principles of the game. (This sounds strange to me...) The rules to a game are unprotectable, if I understand it right. (The specific writing can be copyrighted, but the rules themselves can't be.) Note that Debian has (at least) two games with the same rules as Othello, named GNOME Iagno and Kreversi. Follow that example and you should be all right. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg pgpqSXPGz5bJV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libcompface's license
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 10:02:17AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: | * Compface - 48x48x1 image compression. | * | * Copyright (c) James Ashton - Sydney University - June 1990. | * | * Written 11th November 1889. | * | * Permission is given to distribute these sources, as long as the | * copyright messages are not removed, and no monies are exchanged. | * | * No responsibility is taken for any errors on inaccuracies inherent | * either to the comments or the code of this program, but if reported | * to me, then an attempt will be made to fix them. Does the no monies part mean you can't charge money for the act of distributing libcompface? It seems obvious to me. Is there some reason you have for reading it another way? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: ITP: Arazilla
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:32:39PM +, Muhammad Hussain Yusuf wrote: Arazilla is a GPL Arabic version of the Mozilla web-browser. The current version of Arazilla is built using M17. The license on this is not even close to GPL - the Mozilla part is MPL and the Arabic enabling part is closed source that we can't distribute, and which can't be used by someone who isn't a French resident. At best, this would go into contrib. If you're looking at a different license for the XLANGBOX-ARA stuff than I am, I invite you to post it to debian-legal (reply-to set to debian-legal.) The fonts are also non-free, but passable, though the license is absurd (there's no reverse-engineering needed, for crying out loud!) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Bug#85072: freeamp: contains non-free arial.ttf
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 02:45:40PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: Package: freeamp Version: 2.1-0rc5.1 Severity: important Severity: serious at least. Possibly critical - we're distributing material we have no right to distribute in any way, owned by a copyright owner who will have no hesitation at sueing us. AFAICS this violates the DFSG. So either: 1. relegate freeamp to non-free [sic] I don't think we can do this. The last time we checked, there was no way we could distribute it even in non-free, because it wouldn't let us repackage it. 2. depend on msttcorefonts and use the copy of arial.ttf provided by that - this implies moving to contrib 3. remove the dependence on this font altogether by replacing it or the whole theme. Obviously, the third alternative is best. Probably upstream can be convinced to follow suit ... I notice that SuSE 7.0 has a freeamp.rpm including arial.ttf, and - contrary to Debian - they are for-profit. (3) is the only sane solution, and it needs to be done ASAP. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Bug#84395: ITP: z81 - Sinclair ZX8[01] emulator
[Moved to debian-legal] On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 12:12:12PM -0500, Christopher Allen wrote: Since I havn't been able to find a copy of the actual license for the ROM images, it looks like they at least will have to go in non-free. Can I put the rest of the packages in contrib, or do they have to go in non-free too? (And if they can go in contrib, should I split z81get into a fifth package so that it can go in contrib too?) You have to find a copy of the actual license. I don't think Debian can include it without an actual copy of the license. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
Re: is the license of gsview okay?
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 10:18:45AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: I am interested in gsview which is famous in Windows users and a kind of ghostview or gv. But I am not sure if its license permits us to upload to Debian or not. Why do you want to package it? It's not like it fills a need that can't be filled with free software. GSview is copyright by Ghostgum Software Pty Ltd. GSview is distributed with the Aladdin Free Public Licence. This licence is contained in the file /usr/share/doc/gsview/LICENCE Fine for non-free. pstoedit is Copyright by Wolfgang Glunz and is licensed with the GNU Public Licence (GPL). Binaries are included in GSview with the permission of Wolfgang Glunz. Fine. (GPL is fine as long as it's not linked with non-GPL. This is a seperate binary, so it's all right.) GSview uses pstotext in an external DLL. pstotext was written by Andrew Birrell and Paul McJones. It is Copyright (C) 1995-1996, Digital Equipment Corporation. See the licence in pstotext.txt or pstotext.zip for more details. (3) The Software may not be transferred to any third party unless such third party receives a copy of this Agreement and agrees to be bound by all of its terms and conditions. This is the only part that seems non-free. If I read this right, it's a restriction on distribution Debian can't satisfy even in non-free; we would have to make sure anyone we distributed to agreed before we gave them a copy. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
Re: New licence for cryto++ code-base
In general, it looks fine. (I've never seen a free compilation license, though. That's funky.) A couple points . . . On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:36:56PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote: All files in this library except the following are placed in the public domain by Wei Dai and other contributers. The following files are copyrighted by their respective original authors. haval.cpp - Copyright 1992 Yuliang Zheng. idea.cpp - Copyright 1992 Colin Plumb. mars.cpp - Copyright 1998 Brian Gladman. md2.cpp - Copyright 1994, 1995 Sun Microsystems, Inc. serpent.cpp - Copyright 1998, 1999 Brian Gladman and Sam Simpson. What are the licenses on these documents? Are they compatible and free licenses? 2. Users of this software agree that any modification or extension they provide to Wei Dai will be considered public domain and not copyrighted unless it includes an explicit copyright notice. This is the only thing that's unusual, and I don't see why it would be non-DFSG-free. (It might be unenforcable, but that's his problem.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
Re: OpenDivX license
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:40:39PM -0600, Sam TH wrote: I think we should introduce the concept of precedent into our deliberations here on debian-legal. That is, when a clause of the DFSG has been consistenly interpreted to mean that some aspect of a license is or is not free, then that should be taken to be a real factor in our deliberations. I'd rather not formally state it. While it is true that words only mean what they are taken to mean, and precedence has a very real effect on decisions, decisions should based primarily on the DFSG. The whole point of the DFSG was so Debian could have an objective document they could point to to justify and explain their actions. Precedence starts to undermine that. At worst, precedence goes beyond interpreting what it says, to making new rules, which should be done loudly on debian-devel and debian-private, not quietly on debian-legal. Debian-legal has repeatedly held that requiring or prohibiting particular behavior as a condition of distributiing modified versions is in violation of the Fields of Endeavor clause of the DFSG. Thus, the OpenDivx license is in violation of the DFSG. I would say it's in violation of the Derived Works clause. Clause 3 says The license must allow modifications . . ., not The license must allow some modifications . . . or The license must allow us to change it to work with the system without changing its basic purpose . . .. The few restrictions you can put on modified works (allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license implies being able to restrict people from distributing them under different terms; the patch clause (#4)) are specified in the DFSG. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Recovering from a hard drive crash - website down
Re: software under QPL 1.0
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 06:31:36PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: Is it OK to package software (a standalone tool, no libraries) that has the Q Public Licence, version 1? I'm aware of the incompatibility issue of QPL and GPL that led to the exclusion of KDE 1 from debian. Am I right to assume that there is no problem for a QPL licenced software that is not a library, nor uses a GPL-ed library (but maybe uses a LGPL-ed library)? libqt2.1 was in Debian under the Q Public License, version 1. As long as it doesn't use code under an incompatible license (read: GPL), there's no problem. LGPL's fine. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dvdeug.dhis.org And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects called the human race. Lost in space, lost in time, and meaning. -- RHPS pgp1IJv7k3Utf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DDP's document licenses
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:56:48PM +0100, J.A. Bezemer wrote: Anything with a (C) notice and NO explicit license is NOT DSFG-free. The release-notes for example have no explicit license, but also no (C); I don't know what that would mean for DSFG-freeness. (C) is irrelevant in any Berne Treaty country (i.e. about any country that recognizes copyright at all). But there's no need for formality here - just email the author and ask him to provide a license. Most other docs/manuals are GPL2, but some would argue that that isn't particularly suited for documentation. It works, particularly suited or not. If you don't like the license, then ask the author to change it. No need for formality. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dvdeug.dhis.org And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects called the human race. Lost in space, lost in time, and meaning. -- RHPS
Re: DDP's document licenses
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 07:59:48PM +0100, Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote: I think that we should work in having an uniform license for all the documents distributed from the DDP. Currently all documents have a copyright/license that suited the author but I fear that no serious work has been done in order to make sure that it is a license that will suit Debian's social contract. Why? Does there need to be? Are there any documents that aren't clearly DFSG-free? Also related to this, I think that Debian ought to provide licenses of documentations that are decided upon as free. I recently had a discussion with the base-files maintainer, Santiago Vila, regarding this (check #75379). There's no consensus here, and no one annoyed enough about the whole issue to pound out a consensus. As a pragmatic issue, pure DFSG would toss out a lot of GNU manuels (invariant text). Also as a pragmatic issue, we need the rights to redistrubite at no cost, on any media and sell the document on CD's. If some one needs free document licenses, why don't we just point them to GNU? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dvdeug.dhis.org (You see, the best way to solve a problem is to rigorously define it in terms of other people's problems and then run away quickly.) -- Roland McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing woes
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 07:38:33AM +0100, peter karlsson wrote: 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this Package. You may NOT charge any fee for support of this Package. You may NOT charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in an aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own and fulfill all other requirements of this license regarding this Package. 6. The application cannot be used for any commercial purpose other than specified explicitly in this license. No commercial application can be derived from source code of the Package without a specific written permission from the Copyright Holder. A reference is expected if a substantial part of the source code is used in a free application. Violates DFSG #5 (Fields of Endeavor: program support). Violates DFSG #5 (Fields of Endeavor: commerical purposes). You might want to point out how vague commerical purposes is. If it can't be used in a buisness, then that's a big issue. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dvdeug.dhis.org (You see, the best way to solve a problem is to rigorously define it in terms of other people's problems and then run away quickly.) -- Roland McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpWl5MRETAEO.pgp Description: PGP signature
