Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Debian does, in /usr/share/doc/frr/copyright. > > That is not one of the files at issue. That's in the binary package and source package that Debian distributes; we don't distribute files separately. > I am going to stick with the legal advice I have received, including > from a solicitor specialising in copyright, over the belief of someone > with no qualifications in this area and no experience other than > having read some stuff on the Internet. This *is* debian-legal; if anything anyone said here was actually qualified legal advice, it wouldn't be given in this forum. It certainly wouldn't be given by me. Since there's not much more debian-legal can do for you, please seek out a resource with legal representation like the Software Freedom Conservancy who has expertise in copyright law and its application to free software/open source. Best of luck. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com The solution to a problem changes the problem. -- Peer's Law
Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote: > The GPL stipulates that the distributor must "appropriately publish on > each copy an appropriate copyright notice". Debian does, in /usr/share/doc/frr/copyright. > This is very deliberate, as FRR denies the applicablility of the GPL > to those files, even though these files are dependent on the GPL > source code for function and comprehension and these files are derived > works of the GPL source code, according to legal advice. My understanding is that those files in themselves are not derivative works of GPLed source code, but the entire FRR project is. At least, that's the judgment of the project in https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/1923 > The Debian project can not magically grant itself a GPL licence for > this infringing code, when the FRR project have none to give. As long as Debian is complying with the GPL, whether the FRR project is or is not complying is irrelevant according to GPL-2 §4: parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. I'm afraid that the underlying issue here is a dispute between the Quagga project and the FRR fork of the Quagga project;[1] Debian isn't a party to this dispute, and it's not Debian's job to choose a winner. I hope that the parties to the dispute will compete on the merits or even better, collaborate in the future. Best of luck. 1: https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-users/2017-August/014815.html -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com life's not a paragraph And death i think is no parenthesis -- e.e. cummings "Four VII" _is 5_
Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote: > The code concerned however is explicitly /not/ being distributed under > the terms required by the GPL licence, but rather much weaker licences > (BSD or MIT/X11, e.g.). Licenses which fail to implement the > reciprocal source code publication conditions of the GPL, amongst > other things. Because Debian distributes[1] FRR in compliance with the terms of the GPL, and the terms of the license of the subparts of FRR are compatible with the GPL, Debian is not in violation of the terms of the GPL. > It is - I am advised - not permitted by the GPL and infringing of my > copyright in thise code-base, and also incitement to commit copyright > infringement. As such, the termination clause of the GPL became > applicable to FRR. The termination clause of the GPL applies to entities who are redistributing FRR not to the code base in general; as Debian redistributes in compliance with the GPL (and presumably the FRR project on github does as well), Debian hasn't activated GPL-2 §4. I suggest reaching out to Richard Fontana (or your own legal representation) if any of this is unclear; https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/1923 has the start of covering some of this. 1: Or at least, we should be; if not, please file the bug so it can be fixed. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game. -- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §11
Re: System libraries and the GPLv2
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > On 30/03/17 21:29, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Precisely. It only has bearing on whether the system library > > exception to derivative works applies. > > It should apply. Why should it apply? GPLv2 is written to make the system library exception not apply to distributors of the system library. > Fedora and RHEL ship also DVD images, and they do use this system > exception clause of the GPL for linking with OpenSSL. How do you know this? They could have made a judgement that copyright holders who have written code which links against OpenSSL have given an implicit license grant, or that the likelihood of litigation is outweighed by the issue with distributing such software. Or they may have just not bothered doing either, and hoped for the best. > If you are still not sure, lets consult this with a lawyer instead of > trying to argue about the wording of a license. I don't think that's necessary, but by all means, write up a specific set of questions that you propose to have the project ask its legal representation. Note as well, that the legal advice will necessarily be jurisdiction and project specific. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure. -- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_
Re: System libraries and the GPLv2
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > * License Must Not Contaminate _Other_ Software A work which is a derivative work of another piece of software isn't merely distributed alongside. > Shipping a collection of software on a DVD doesn't make any of this > pieces of software a derivative works one of the other. Precisely. It only has bearing on whether the system library exception to derivative works applies. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila -- Mitch Ratcliffe
Re: System libraries and the GPLv2
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Holger Levsen wrote: > It's also a major fuckup for some GPLv2-only users (as you just > described), which as a result made *me* like+trust the FSF and the GPL > less. The FSF has always suggested that everyone license their works with the current revision of the GPL at the time of starting the project, or any later version, at your option. The only way the FSF could have accommodated v2 only people was to include an explicit v2 reversion clause, which makes many of the nice v3 features useless. [Like patents, warranty disclaimers, non-source conveyance, DMCA bits, etc.] > (And which then also resulted in me choosing GPLv2-only over GPLv2 or > GPLv3 more often.) Why not just license your work GPLv2+, then? You get compatibility with v3, you can still work with anything which is v2 only, and you have compatibility with a newer revision of the GPL if one ever happens. Or at least appoint a proxy who can decide whether later license revisions meet your standards. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p251
Re: Can "PDB" license be considered free ?
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:38:55PM -0600, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Mon, 07 Mar 2016, Peter Rice wrote: > > > The conclusion was that scientific data (SwissProt, PDB, etc.) are > > > scientific facts and it is not reasonable to require permission to > > > change them. > > > > This isn't true; there are loads of reasons to change sequences and > > structural models of proteins. Protein sequences are just based on > > references which have inaccuracies and do not represent ancestral > > sequences or the true variation present in real populations; in my lab > > we modify UniProt sequences and redistribute those modifications in > > publications all of the time. > > Note that this text only says that if you modify things, you're > required to change the name. The text also says Data files contained in the PDB archive (ftp://ftp.wwpdb.org) are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use. So I suspect that this is yet-another case of confusion about what copyright means and licensing allows you to do. But that said, the DFSG allows us to redistribute software which requires renaming. However, the restriction on modifying "HEADER, CAVEAT, REVDAT, SPRSDE, DBREF, SEQADV, and MODRES" isn't DFSG compatible, as those are records in the PDB file which one would actually want to modify if someone was redistributing a PDB which had been renamed to avoid confusion. I suspect this is an oversight, and someone could communicate with the PDB group to get this resolved during their next meeting. Does anyone on the -med group have contacts with any of the PDB groups? -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com [T]he question of whether Machines Can Think, [...] is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra "The threats to computing science"
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? cdrecord is a prominent example, where the developer was vehemently against Debian distributing it, and also vehemently against distributing a forked version. Guess what? Debian distributed it anyway. The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing repositories. The correct place of this program would be in main, but people expect free as in beer software there. Myself included. main is for software which meets the DFSG. Software which is only available at no cost but cannot be modified or used without limitation is not Free Software, and does not meet the DFSG. The correct place for software which can be distributed by Debian but does not meet the requirements of the DFSG is non-free. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150331204800.ga6...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? If it was actually AGPLed in its entirety, the maintainer would just remove code which enforced the 5 user limitation. On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: I choose not to name it at the moment. Based on the facts, you're probably talking about Servoy.[1] They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the code. In any event, without particular licenses and source files, we're having an academic discussion without concrete information or relation to Debian, which isn't on topic for debian-legal. 1: https://wiki.servoy.com/display/DOCS/Open+Source+FAQ -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something. -- Steven Wright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150324202146.gj2...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Ian Jackson wrote: Don Armstrong writes (Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches): There's no real difference between a message with a disclaimer, and one without. I think this depends on the text of the disclaimer (and perhaps on the jurisdiction). The main difference would be if the disclaimer gave you a license. Otherwise, a disclaimer claiming copyright is no different than the status quo; whoever actually owns the copyright owns the copyright, disclaimer or no disclaimer. If the person authoring the patch grants a license (or the patch cannot be covered by copyright), then there's no problem. * The human being who wrote the patch may not own the copyright; perhaps it is owned by their employer. Yes; I really mean author in the copyright owner sense. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I never until now realized that the primary job of any emoticon is to say excuse me, that didn't make any sense. ;-P -- Cory Doctorow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150216171846.gc25...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Christoph Biedl wrote: every now and then I receive submissions (i.e. patches) by e-mail for packages I maintain. Sometimes a disclaimer¹ is part of that message, a text that denies me from doing certain things with that e-mail - like copying or disclosing the message. In my opinion using such a patch for an upload would violate that clause and therefore might even put the Debian project in jeopardy. There's no real difference between a message with a disclaimer, and one without. The only question is the actual license of the patch. If the person authoring the patch grants a license (or the patch cannot be covered by copyright), then there's no problem. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free [...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. -- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150215202035.gg27...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Fwd: Re: Bug#769716: iceweasel: downloads Cisco's OpenH264 video codec
While I'm not sure if this particular mail discusses enough patent issues for this to be relevant, I'm going to say this anyway: Specific Patent-related legal issues should not be discussed on debian-legal@lists.debian.org (or any other Debian mailing list.) If you have patent-related issues to discuss, please send them to pate...@debian.org See https://www.debian.org/legal/patent for more details. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'... -- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141130215057.gx25...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: jmapviewer: Download bing logo via attribution XML at runtime?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Felix Natter wrote: = Do we really want to do this? I think that problematic bing support is not quite new for this package? NEWS.Debian is just easy to write to, and if there isn't already a mechanism upstream to indicate that people may inadvertently be violating a license agreement it may help. But I don't think this should hold up sponsoring or anything else this late in the release; it's a minor/normal bug at best. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Leukocyte... I am your father. -- R. Stevens http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1546 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021164120.gn28...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: jmapviewer: Download bing logo via attribution XML at runtime?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Felix Natter wrote: IMHO the question is: Under which license are we allowed to use http://dev.virtualearth.net/REST/v1/Imagery/Metadata/Aerial?include=ImageryProvidersoutput=xmlkey=... (the REST Service for Bing maps) at all? The fact that this is a restriction on use is a bit problematic, just from an end-user point of view. [I don't believe this affects its DFSG status, since it works with free data sources just fine.] It would probably be ideal if the user was warned about potentially restrictive data sources when they enabled them the first time too; this would give them a chance to do due diligence. (Or even when the program first started if the program already had some equivalent feature.) [And if it already does so, ignore my critique; I'm not familiar with this software beyond following your efforts to clean up the DFSG status with regards to the Bing logo.] At the very least, I'd stick a note in NEWS.Debian.gz. Thanks again for working on making this software DFSG free. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021020038.gi28...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Citation requirements
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Hendrik Weimer wrote: I've come across a piece of software that has a requirement in its license text mandating to cite a certain set of works in scientific publications for which the software has been used. I vaguely remember that such citation requirement clauses were generally considered to be non-free (see, e.g., [1]), but I have trouble to come up with a reason for this assessment. Such a requirement is a restriction on use, because it requires you to cite the software when you use it, even if the manner in which you are using it is incompatible with citation. For example, a newspaper article which doesn't use citations, etc. Can works with a citation requirement go into main? If you're interested in the specific case, the actual license text is available at [2]. Heh. In this case, it can trivially be made free. GPL v3 allows licensees to remove additional restrictions when the work is conveyed to them, and the requirement to cite is clearly an additional restriction which is not allowed under GPL3 §7. I would contact the openmps group, and explain to them that they should just make their citation requirement a suggestion. [Any scientific paper or work is going to cite them anyway, so there's no need to require it.] [2] http://sourceforge.net/p/openmps/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/gpl3-cite.txt -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Information wants to be free to kill again. -- Red Robot http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1372 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141011222721.gn23...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL
On Thu, 08 May 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote: On Wed, 7 May 2014, Bálint Réczey wrote: In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable time to comply, i.e. I don't have to publish all 0days on my site if I run AGPL-covered software.. You only have to publish code to users who are interacting with that code. If you're deploying 0 day fixes to the internet, then you're going to have to provide access to the same code so that other people can take advantage of your fixes. On Wed, 7 May 2014, Clint Byrum wrote: The things that link to ghostscript as a library will now need to be evaluated. If they are contacted via network ports, they'll need to have source download capabilities added. This is incorrect. They only need to have this in place if they modify the AGPLed work. On Thu, 8 May 2014, Riley Baird wrote: What if the network in question is not the internet? Right, the AGPL is not technology-neutral. The AGPL just specifies computer network and network server. It says nothing about the internet at all. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Because, Fee-5 explained patiently, I was born in the fifth row. Any fool would understand that, but against stupidity the very Gods themselves contend in vain. -- Alfred Bester _The Computer Connection_ p19 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140508190608.gh13...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Bug#705152: Non-free code in xgraph? [copyright.h and derivative.c for starters.]
Package: xgraph Severity: serious Version: 12.1-15 Ulrich Mueller reported this to debian-legal@lists.debian.org. FWICT, at least the contents of the source package are not distributable by Debian in main. It's possible that the binary packages do not contain any work which is copyrighted by Paul Walker, but the source packages at least need to be altered to remove this non-free, non-distributable code. [If I and Ulrich Mueller has misinterpreted what is going on here, please let us know, and if at all possible, update debian/copyright to explain in some future upload so we and others don't revisit this erroneously in the future.] On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote: The original tarball contains a file copyright.h, which states that additions made by Paul Walker are non-free (for education, academic research and non-commercial purposes, provided [...] that no charge is made for such copies). Heh. That's not going to work. If that's actually the case, this code has to be removed from the orig.tar.gz that Debian distributes. Now the Debian changeset patches copyright.h and removes everything but the first two paragraphs from the license, i.e. the parts concerning the Paul Walker extensions. However, I don't see that the corresponding code would be removed. Especially, derivative.c is still there, which says: This entire routine written by PW. Same for the animation code; there are comments with a PW tag at several places. Therefore I wonder how this change to copyright.h came about, and if this package really is Free Software? I doubt that it is, or at least, the copyright and changes aren't documented well enough for Debian to be able to properly distribute this. [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/licenses/as-is?view=markup [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=452914 Don Armstrong -- Tell me something interesting about yourself. Lie if you have to. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130410163040.gn15...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Public Domain again
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote: My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG, If a work can actually be placed into the public domain, then that usually means that it has no copyright, and therefore automatically satisfies the DFSG so long as there is source. In countries where this isn't the case,[1] then it may not, but Debian has never claimed to be able to work around all countries broken legal systems. Beyond that, I'm afraid I'm unable to follow what you're asking for, exactly. Don Armstrong -- Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or daring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer to achieve immortality by not dying. -- Terry Pratchet _The Color of Magic_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130201002521.gn30...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Ethics/morals issue
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Gary Wilson wrote: Good day - We have a son taking Computer Science at Ryerson University in Toronto Canada. He is very religious and is concerned that using your software without reading, in detail all of your license agreements including the entire list for both free and non-free suppliers. This is jeopardizing his study. Can you help by clarifying your requirements/understanding of who needs to read what. In general, everything which is in the archive, but not in non-free follows the DFSG. If you have concerns which are not addressed by the DFSG, or you plan on using non-free, we include the licenses of the software in the copyright file included in each package. That said, we cannot provide any sort of warranty that the software in Debian main actually meets the DFSG or is suitable for whatever concerns that you have. Finally, I should note that the software we distribute is in general far more liberally licensed than the vast majority of proprietary software. Don Armstrong -- That is why I am still tyrant of [Ankh-Morpork]. The way to retain power, I have always thought, is to ensure the absolute unthinkability of oneself not being there. -- Terry Pratchett _Unseen Academicals_ p391 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121125200956.gk19...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one of them. I personally don't really see the need for copyright assignments, unless we foresee the need to enforce the copyright. Instead, a properly written maximally permissive grant (with the ability to sublicence) to SPI or some other appropriate body in addition to licensing the work under the currently understood set of licenses. Or, if we decide that we won't ever need to relicense, we can just continue on with proper licensing terms. Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120108223738.gs26...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Clark C. Evans wrote: * In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public * License version 3, these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the * display of the Powered by SugarCRM logo. If the display of the * logo is not reasonably feasible for technical reasons, the * Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words Powered by * SugarCRM. To quote the definition of Appropriate Legal Notices in GPLv3: An interactive user interface displays Appropriate Legal Notices to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. That is, the work can require the displaying of the Copyright notice and that there is no warranty, and that's it. The only other thing that can be done is [r]equiring [the] preservation of specified reasonable legal notices, but that does not include the displaying of those notices. SugarCRM really should consult with the FSF before adopting this kind of additional restriction, but I rather doubt that they have. See http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html and other similar articles about it. Don Armstrong -- Clint why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common? infinity It... Doesn't? Clint good point http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111214213732.gt21...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Clark C. Evans wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 01:37 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: An interactive user interface displays Appropriate Legal Notices to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. I think these are the criteria used to know when a work is displaying Appropriate Legal Notices, not that it would limit items to be included. This paragraph does both; it describes how Appropriate Legal Notices [ALN] can be displayed, and how ALN are defined. Anything which is not enumerated there does not appear to be an ALN. So, I think Attribution is absolutely included, the question for me is if Powered By SugarCRM is a reasonable author attribution. I like Simon's wording of something that would be covered... The critical aspect here is whether author attributions are required to be preserved in the material, or also in the ALNs. Retaining them in the material is clearly reasonable, but I don't believe that forcing them to be present in the ALN is consistent with the terms of the GPL. But in any event, since no one appears to be planning on packaging sugarCRM for Debian, I'll just stop here. Don Armstrong -- More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111214222840.gu21...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote: Are you saying that nothing inside a (complete) debian ISO image containing GPLv2 software in executable form fulfills either the 3.b) written offer or 3.c) information you received conditions for distribution? That if I give someone a CDR with a debian*netinst.iso burned on it it and nothing else, I'm violating the GPLv2? Debian doesn't distribute any GPLed works under 3b or 3c for precisely this reason. If you want to give someone Debian, you should give them the multi-arch DVD image. (Or alternatively, give them the opportunity to pick up a set of sources on some image.) If so, it seems to me that this is a bug in debian that could be fixed. Fixing it for random third parties is very difficult, and not something that Debian wants to be on the line for maintaining, especially for unreleased architectures. You yourself are of course free to produce a written offer. Don Armstrong -- One day I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time. -- Steven Wright http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110428173357.gv23...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the if the source does not exist any more, what is left is source rule, the compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and thus) prefered form for making further changes. Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] I feel that this is against the spirit of copyleft, so I am surprised that it is claimed not to be against the letter of the GPL. I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Because the source no longer exists, the upstream is not in a privileged position for making future modifications. Copyleft is fundamentally about putting the users of a program on the same footing with the same freedoms as the creator of a program. Don Armstrong -- Leukocyte... I am your father. -- R. Stevens http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1546 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318224739.ga29...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: MS-PL LGPL
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Chris Harshman wrote: On 12/20/2010 1:26 AM, Rudolf Polzer wrote: First of all, this is off-topic on this list, as we talk mainly about DFSG compliance, and about legal issues with packages in Debian. Out of curiosity, *is* there a recommended list for programmers with open source licensing questions? Not really. If you have a question about programs using GNU licenses, the FSF can try to help answer them: licens...@fsf.org. Otherwise, if it involves Debian (which seems to have most of the common licenses), you can ask here. I think in this case, the FSF could probably help; I personally haven't read the MS-PL, and have no idea what it's about. Don Armstrong -- I learned really early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something -- Richard Feynman What is Science Phys. Teach. 7(6) 1969 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101220205610.gc5...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010, Ibrahim Haddad wrote: To start with, the goal is to avoid any confusion around what is and what is not MeeGo. Anything that is or will become associated with the MeeGo trademark has to be in conformance with the compliance program. Unfortunately, there's no way that Debian can possibly comply with the compliance specification as written. [I only got as far as §2.3 to find an obvious deal-breaker.] This sounds like yet another case where an unbranded name[1] is required for actual use in the community, ala iceweasel. Don Armstrong 1: wontgo came to mind immediately, but something slightly less antagonistic can probably be though of. -- There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be solved by brute strength and ignorance. -- William's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101210121646.gf16...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: * Don Armstrong: CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems. It's intended for cases where you're running a GPLed work on a system which is GPL-incompatible. The FSF also unconditionally labels the CDDL als GPL-incompatible (although it is not clear if the license overview was thoroughly updated for GPL version 3). They're referring to the common case where the System Library exception is not invoked. There used to be a GNU libc port to the SunOS kernel. Perhaps the Nexenta folks can revive that? My suggestion was to link GPLed binaries to such a libc which circumvents most of these problems. However, because of design considerations, the libc-kernel interface is not as stable in SunOS as it is in linux, which makes this a long-term labor intensive process. Don Armstrong -- Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you really want to test his character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100924001854.gk6...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)
In the course of Debconf10, I was asked a few questions about CDDL'ed libc, Nexenta, GPLed works and what would be necessary to have GPLed works which linked to a CDDLed libc so Nexenta could possibly become a Debian port. To make sure I haven't lept off the edge; I just wanted to run this by everyone. The quick ruberic is the following: CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv2 work: Probably Not OK * and GPLv2+ work + CDDL work (non-System Library): Not OK More lengthly explanation: The real question for GPLed works which link to solaris libc is whether or not solaris libc fits in with the system library exception. It's my understanding that for GPLv2 and v3, if you're not shipping the system library yourself, you don't need to concern yourself with license compatibility, and can just ship it anyway. This isn't the case for Debian or Nextenta, though, so we don't even need to contemplate it. For GPLv2 (not GPLv2+), the situtation when you are shipping both is more difficult; the key question here is what the precise meaning is of However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. My understanding is that for GPLv2, that means that we must also have the source, and we must ship it in compliance with the GPL, which we cannot do with CDDL works. [The critical aspect here is what precisely is meant by accompanies the executable, we've long assumed[1] that Debian's distribution of libraries means that they are accompanying the executable.] For GPLv3 (and GPLv2+, where we can choose GPLv3), the critical question is whether libc is a System Library. The System Libraries of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A Major Component, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. So, starting from the bottom, it's clear that libc is a majorq essential component of the OS. It implements a Standard Interface for which we have source code. The remaining question is what precisely is meant by subpart (a); I believe that libc is included with the C compiler or kernel Major Component, but isn't itself the kernel or compiler. So I believe that in the case of a libc licensed under the CDDL, things that are GPLv3 or GPLv2+ can be distributed and link against it. In the case of GPLv2 only (or cases of GPLv2+ where we have to choose GPLv2), we cannot link to a CDDLed libc, and must instead link with a libc which is compatible with the GPL. [There is eglibc running on the solaris kernel, but the Solaris kernel doesn't maintain as tight of an API as the linux kernel; it instead relies on libc to present that API.] Don Armstrong -- Who is thinking this? I am. -- Greg Egan _Diaspora_ p38 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100902224530.gm22...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Don Armstrong wrote: This is something that should be worked out with the Ubuntu One developers and/or Ubuntu people. So long as we and all of our downstream have the ability to exercise the rights guaranteed by the DFSG via a trademark grant (or probably even just e-mail communication to that effect), it should be redistributable in main. [Indeed, it may even be the case for #564276 as well.] Let me get an Ubuntu person to weigh in on this. I've talked with Matt Zimmerman, who talked with the correct people at Ubuntu, who confirmed that it was accpetable use from their perspective, that it was NOT necessary to rename or rebrand these packages from a trademark perspective. He indicated that the trademark policy as described on the website was primarily directed at Ubuntu as a distribution. [This is fairly similar to the way Debian itself polices its trademarks.] So, the names and such should all be ok, but we should fix the menus in software-center (#564276) as appropriate. Don Armstrong -- I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100818210738.gj22...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Walter Landry wrote: This makes it clearly non-free. It is best to just replace anything trademarked by Ubuntu. An important caveat though, is that not every use of the word Ubuntu is trademarkable. So while the package in question certainly should be rebranded, it's not necessary to expunge every last mention of ubuntu from packages. In fact, upstream probably wants this package to be trivially rebrandable given the number of ubuntu derivatives there are. Don Armstrong -- Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go. -- Howard Tayler _Schlock Mercenary_ March 8th, 2003 http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20030308.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100810212625.gk31...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, René Mayorga wrote: How about Ubuntu™ One client (#559752), I think that this could affect those efforts too. Not sure. Parts of it are certainly something that trademark could apply to. [I think it's ok if it was works with Ubuntu One, but the Ubuntu One client may be probablematic.] This is something that should be worked out with the Ubuntu One developers and/or Ubuntu people. So long as we and all of our downstream have the ability to exercise the rights guaranteed by the DFSG via a trademark grant (or probably even just e-mail communication to that effect), it should be redistributable in main. [Indeed, it may even be the case for #564276 as well.] Let me get an Ubuntu person to weigh in on this. Don Armstrong -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100810231110.gl31...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Please review Julius's license (custom license with publicity clause)
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals wrote: 2. In the event you provide to any third party all or any portion of the Software, whether for copying, duplication, adaptation, modification, preparation of a derivative work, aggregation with another program, insertion into another program, or other use, you shall affix the following copyright notice and all terms and conditions of this license (both the Japanese original and English translation) as set forth herein, without any revision or change whatsoever. This is a lawyer bomb, as it doesn't describe where and how we are supposed to affix the copyright notice. [I *think* they mean that it should be included with the software, but it could also mean that it needs to be written on the CD, which is a non-starter.] Alternatively, this vagueness may be a consequence of an imprecise English translation; I can't read Japanese (and certainly not legal Japanese) well enough to state one way or the other. 3. When you publish or present any results by using the Software, you must explicitly mention your use of Large Vocabulary Continuous Speech Recognition Engine Julius. There's no reason to require this; it makes the software non-free as it is clearly a use restriction. [A suggestion that people cite the software is almost certainly enough, and should accomplish what the author wishes in most cases.] 5. This license of use of the Software shall be governed by the laws of Japan, and the Kyoto District Court shall have exclusive primary jurisdiction with respect to all disputes arising with respect thereto. This sounds like proscribed venue; that's not something that I would ever agree to in a software licence without thought. However, I'm not sure what the current consensus is about the freeness of such clauses. 6. Inquiries for support or maintenance of the Software, or inquiries concerning this license of use besides the conditions above, may be sent to Julius project team, Nagoya Institute of Technology, or Kawahara Lab., Kyoto University. Point 6 doesn't belong in the license; it should go in a readme or somewhere else. [It doesn't affect the freeness of the license, however.] Don Armstrong -- [A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty. -- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §21 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100718034452.gy27...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Distribution of media content together with GPLv2 code in one package?
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010, Rudolf Polzer wrote: One argument against supplying full source code commonly raised by artists, is that a 3MB large music piece can depend on several gigabytes of source data, if applying the source requirement recursively. This is one problem, but while it may not be feasible to distribute the complete source in Debian due to mirror constraints, it should be publicly available and probably archived by the project somewhere. [Perhaps the data.debian.org service can be abused to do this? Not sure.] Sorry, but I have NEVER heared any good sounding dynamically generated music, or procedurally generated sounds. The main reason why is because this is an area where Free Software lags significantly behind what is currently available in the commercial software realm[1], and the audio processing tools we do have aren't often designed to be driven via a library API. That said, it's certainly possible to do. Sounds often are mixed from hundreds of recorded samples from the same event (e.g. throwing a can on the ground). Artists then tend to delete the single recordings, and do further improvement based on the mixed recording. If no one has the originals, then that's the source; the problem is when the author has the master-mix tapes, and no one else does. [I should note too, that there's considerable debate as to what Debian itself requires for source; I personally think we should be distributing as much as we can, but probably the majority doesn't feel this is a hard requirement for main for non-programatic works.] Well, because of the source requirement, CC probably is not DFSG-free then? No, it just means that there may be additional things that Debian requires for a work to be in main beyond what the CC requires. Don Armstrong -- My spelling ability, or rather the lack thereof, is one of the wonders of the modern world. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100405013728.gi21...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Distributing Debian derivative
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, David Given wrote: What are my alternatives? Is there a standalone, one-static-binary-with-no-dependencies-whatsoever version of cdebootstrap I can give my users? You can use cdebootstrap-static; it depends on wget, which should be trivially satisfiable on any architecture which actually supports running linux binaries. Don Armstrong -- Love is... a complex sequence of neurochemical reactions that makes people behave like idiots. It's similar to intoxication, but the hangover's even worse. -- J. Jacques _Questionable Content_ #1039 http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1039 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2010032300.gi21...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Joke non-free clauses?
reopen 533555 thanks On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it (24/02/2010): Or maybe they are jokes that look like non-free clauses, I am not sure which one makes more sense or better describes the situation... Looks like upstream clarified the “joke status”? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=18;bug=533555 There's no indication that thatcadguy is actually upstream. [At least, thatcadguy isn't listed as a Developer that I could see on SF in a few minutes of checking.] The meaning of clause 6 is rather difficult to parse and basically a complete lawyerbomb. Humor is fine, but humor in licenses with possible legal consequences isn't really something we should be distributing in main or contrib. If the real maintainers can actually be contacted by mail and get a binding response that clauses 4-6 are jokes, and promise to remove or make them clearly requests in future releases, I think that'd be sufficient. Don Armstrong -- Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going If in their place we find a thing more precious growing A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing -- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2010022419.gv28...@volo.donarmstrong.com
Re: Joke non-free clauses?
tag 533555 patch retitle 533555 Clauses 4-6 can be ignored by a new clause 8; clarify copyright file summary -1 533555 severity 533555 minor thanks On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Don Armstrong wrote: If the real maintainers can actually be contacted by mail and get a binding response that clauses 4-6 are jokes, and promise to remove or make them clearly requests in future releases, I think that'd be sufficient. After a series of e-mails with the upstream maintainer, I've gotten clarification that clauses 4-6 are meant to be jokes via the addition of a new clause 8: http://dumb.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=licences [There isn't a clause 7.] I'm personally still not happy with the license, but that's because it's not sane, not because the intent is to make it fail the DFSG. [I don't have an opinion about whether Debian continues to distribute DUMB.] Don Armstrong -- Leukocyte... I am your father. -- R. Stevens http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1546 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100225072709.ge28...@volo.donarmstrong.com
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 03:43:53PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: It seems like AMD should really be distributing these header files with a maximum permissive license like MIT/Expat or similar. Perhaps someone should contact them and try to get it to happen? Or maybe nobody should care, because they don't contain anything copyrightable ? Whether the code bits are copyrightable or not is necessarily a jurisdiction-dependent question. While I'd hope that the code bits weren't copyrightable (at least in the US), I'm not aware of case law which has dealt with the copyrightability of interfaces and header files which have a degree of flexibility as to their implementation. As such, when the author states that the work is indeed copyrighted, our default position should be that they are correct, and we should attempt to obtain a license to use the work that satisfies the DFSG. Alternatively, since the interface itself shouldn't be copyrighted, though a particular representation of it may be, a chinese wall implementation of the interface can be enacted. (except maybe comments) In this case, the comments are rather copious, so they are certainly copyrighted. We definetly cannot distribute the file as it exists upstream in BOINC.[1] Don Armstrong 1: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/svn/trunk/boinc/lib/cal.h -- I really wanted to talk to her. I just couldn't find an algorithm that fit. -- Peter Watts _Blindsight_ p294 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010, Nicolas Alvarez wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: Where is this proprietary library distributed? In AMD website. If the user downloads it and installs it, BOINC will use it, and will be able to detect your ATI cards. In order to use the proprietary library, it uses the function declarations in the cal.h header distributed with the package. It seems like AMD should really be distributing these header files with a maximum permissive license like MIT/Expat or similar. Perhaps someone should contact them and try to get it to happen? Don Armstrong -- Judge if you want. We are all going to die. I intend to deserve it. -- a softer world #421 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=421 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: bsd modified bsd clarification
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009, Penny Leach wrote: So far so good. Except I've come into a bit of trouble with what to use for the Modified BSD. Debian's license information [2] states that Modified BSD is a common license, meaning that it is to be found inside /usr/share/common-licenses. It actually isn't in common-licenses, because /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is specific to the Regents of the University of California. [It is a commonly used license, but every time someone besides the UC Regents uses it, they modify the original clause three (which was deleted by the UC Regents), or clause four, so no one else can reference common-licenses.] Which brings me to the quandary of what to put inside debian/copyright. I guess I can put Modified BSD and include the license verbatim, as Dwoo ships it in LICENSE, except that now of course I'm curious ;) Right, that's exactly what you should do. Don Armstrong -- The smallest quantity of bread that can be sliced and toasted has yet to be experimentally determined. In the quantum limit we must necessarily encounter fundamental toast particles which the author will unflinchingly designate here as croutons. -- Cser, Jim. Nanotechnology and the Physical Limits of Toastability. AIR 1:3, June, 1995. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [non-free] Packaging a closed-source application with limited distribution access
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: I would like to package Intersystems Caché, a proprietary database by Intersystems and upload it to non-free. [...] Questions - Is this kind of software, with such a limited access to the binary tarball, allowed to be in non-free? If we actually have permission to distribute it on all of our mirrors (and any future mirrors of Debian), there's no real reason why it couldn't be distributed. However, since no one can actually use it in any interesting way without it being licensed, I'm not sure if it makes sense for Debian to distribute it. [It also really depends on the terms of the actual license; Debian shouldn't be exposed to any additional liability by distributing it.] But that said, your question is really more of one for ftpmasters; I'd send a message to ftpmas...@debian.org and make sure that you get the permision required for upload initially. Don Armstrong -- Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept. -- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: private packages
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Pascal GREGIS wrote: it doesn't tell me if the use of the .deb format obliges the package to be distributed. Using the .deb packaging format doesn't add any additional requirement to distribute the binaries or the source code. Obviously, you must comply with the license of everything that you distribute. You really should be engaging your corporate counsel who should be able to work out (and explain) the rest of these issues for you. Don Armstrong -- Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Mono License changes over time and the risks this is presenting.
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009, Peter Dolding wrote: non-free is the section I mean. Items in there have restrictions that could mean they are non free. non-free is for things which we can distribute legally but do not meet the DFSG. Things that are controlled by patents which are actively enforced for which we do not have a license to distribute and our users to use cannot be legally distributed, and therefore cannot be in non-free. FWICT, the .NET patents[1] don't meet the bar of being actively enforced. I personally wouldn't recommend that people develop with them, but that has little to nothing to do with whether we distribute them in main or people decide to build on them. Don Armstrong 1: I honestly don't even know *which* specific patents we're talking about here; it's all awash in FUD. -- Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved. -- Craig Dickson in 20020909231134.ga18...@linux700.localnet http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 16 mars 2009 à 11:18 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : Is there any hope of getting Leboutte to license this under CC without the NC and ND clauses or retract his claims? I don’t think so, but maybe an open source evangelist would have better luck. You'd probably know people who'd be more likely to get Leboutte's attention (and speak french); try to enlist one of them. Alternatively, can someone generate a clean-room implementation of the appropriate layout? What do you mean by “clean-room”? Both X11 implementations were made from scratch, it’s just that Francis Leboutte claims they are a derived work of his layout. I mean that the X11 implementations were made without direct reference to potentially copyrighted portions of Francis Leboutte's implementation. If that's the case, then we can distribute these versions, ditch Leboutte's implementation, and sleep soundly while ignoring threats about them. I think we’re not at risk of anyone being sued as long as we don’t distribute a derived version. However this particular requirement makes the layout non-free. Right. I'm just concerned about one of the derivatives of Debian naïvely distributing a derived version if it's distributed in main, and so if we go that way, I'd want to force Leboutte's hand. [If it's in non-free, it doesn't make any difference to me.] Don Armstrong -- Information wants to be free to kill again. -- Red Robot http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1372 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: However, the Francis Leboutte mapping is now included in Debian. This means we should settle on this issue: if we consider it non-free, we must remove this layout (and all derivatives) from the distribution; if we don’t, there’s no barrier against including some variants. I’d tend to say we should opt for the conservative approach and remove them; despite the fact that I like the mapping, we shouldn’t include software with such an unclear copyright status. Is there any hope of getting Leboutte to license this under CC without the NC and ND clauses or retract his claims? Alternatively, can someone generate a clean-room implementation of the appropriate layout? I'm of the opinion that if we are to distribute the layout, and we are unable to do the two things above, we need to get legal advice, and then specificially ignore the ND clause by distributing a derived version. I'm slightly concerned about this layout hanging around and then a small company who uses it because it was distributed in Debian being sued. Don Armstrong -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion [...] refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it---and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski, Dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer (CV-00-00411-WBS p5983-4) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Consider how hard it would be to have the law say products must contain warnings about nuts, unless the presence of nuts is sufficiently obvious anyway. I've no clue about the UK, but in the US, the law actually deals with this problem. See Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act part w. We're so insanely offtopic now, though, that's it's almost comedic. Don Armstrong -- I was thinking seven figures, he said, but I would have taken a hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person. [All for a moldy bottle of tropicana.] -- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to make the whole lot free? If you don't want to require this, you don't want copyleft. There's no license that I'm aware of that distinguishes between little bit, but still copyrightable and entire thing. [And it'd be one of those things that you'd almost be asking for litigation to decide, so not terribly useful.] Plus, it's not like you couldn't use GPL and advertise that you'd license smaller bits under different licences for people who couldn't comply with the GPL. And I think RMS is a bit on my side - after all he did write the LGPL... For libraries so that they would be widely used, not for general copyleft usage. Don Armstrong -- Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. -- W. Churchill http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted.), but I want to make sure. Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] Don Armstrong -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. [For non-copyleft works, however, your statement is correct.] Don Armstrong -- If you find it impossible to believe that the universe didn't have a creator, why don't you find it impossible that your creator didn't have one either? -- Anonymous Coward http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167556cid=13970629 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. If the work as distributed *by the author* lacks something one might call source, a recipient may still redistribute whatever he received. That's not correct, unless you're in a locality that has some form of the First Sale doctrine. Debian doesn't ever distribute under the first sale doctrine, and furthermore, Debian modifies everything that is distributed (even if just to package it), so it doesn't apply either. [And we certainly don't distribute in 1:1 ratio from the copies we obtain from original author.] Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source available, which we cannot. Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires distributing the corresponding machine-readable source code. If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). Don Armstrong -- Information wants to be free to kill again. -- Red Robot http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1372 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the requirements of the GPL, or any license, extend backwards, prior to the point it was applied. No, that's not my argument at all.[1] I very carefully do not discuss what the corresponding source is. I do this for two reasons: 1) what it is is entirely orthogonal to whether we must distribute it to satisfy the GPL 2) a determination of what it is requires a specific work with information about the license being applied and the method used to generate the work. That said, I'll indulge myself in the orthogonality: For photographs, the argument about what constitutes source can easily become absurd. I can easily imagine a photograph where the preferred form for modification is the depicted scene itself, rather than its depiction. To created a modified photo, the photographer would rearrange the scene and make a new photo, not alter an existing one. Does this mean a photo of this scene cannot be distributed under the GPL (unless the physical scene is also included)? If that is what the Corresponding Source is, sure. I think such a determination would not be sensible. I even drafted language some time ago to attempt to resolve this abiguity (prefered form of the work for modification or the digitally-encodeable transformation thereof). Similarly, when I write a computer programme, a lot of ideas, structures, etc. that could be seen as source remain as thoughts in my brain, never to be written down. Such ephemeral things do not have much in the way of form, so they're not the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it in my opinion. (And presumably, not in yours either.) Don Armstrong 1: I should note that belittling remarks like Your argument, if it can be called that aren't particularly conducive to polite conversation or indeed any further consideration of this subthread by me. -- No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Non free license?
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Pietro Battiston wrote: I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0]. The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from (eventual) maintainer, neither from ftp-masters. I'd try asking again, since it's definetly not because of the 1,2,4 clause BSD license you've shown below. [Though it may be from some fragment of code that isn't actually under this license; you need to check the source code yourself to see if that's the case.] Don Armstrong -- I'm wrong to criticize the valor of your brave men. It's important to die for one's country when it means being the subject of a king who wears a ruffled collar or a pleated one. -- Cyrano de Bergerac http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote: ATTENTION!! The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to ask for permission. Grants only right to use, which is vague but not normally taken to mean more than perform or run; i.e. a read-only use. How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this license in your analysis and go straight to a sentence that is nothing more than a description of a single instance of license interpretation? The first sentence is nearly meaningless, and free of content that would help understand precisely what is meant by totally free. Perhaps someone who understands the language in which this license was written could weigh in and change the interpretation, but based on the translation we were given, it is not DFSG free. The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay for these works. Likewise, if use means just perform, then it's totally different from a standin for use in any manner, including but not limited to modifcation, distribution, and performance. Since it's not clear that we've actually been granted the rights that we need, we should in general assume that we haven't. All of that said and done, if the copyright holder actually means for the work to be DFSG free, using a license that is trivially understood to be DFSG free is ideal. Don Armstrong -- Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay for these works. Given the subsequent This means [use for any purpose] language, I think free as in beer is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation of that). The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any information as to what the underlying words that were translated actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages. Don Armstrong -- EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise when you step right up to a urinal and use it with a smile. Get Dr. Mary Evers' EQUAL-NOW Adapter (pat. appld. for) -- purse size, fool proof, sanitary -- comes in nine lovely, feminine, psychedelic patterns -- requires no fitting, no prescriptions. -- Robert A Heinlein _I Will Fear No Evil_ p470. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:54:02 pm Don Armstrong wrote: The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any information as to what the underlying words that were translated actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages. Which is certainly a fair point... but I'm thinking the initial poster is a native speaker, and isn't going to insert terms like rights into sentences that is talking about costs. A right to use a copyrighted work traditionally involves cost; these are not orthogonal concepts. Also, that second sentence would have to be essentially made-up if the first sentence is really talking about money. It's possible to interpret it in an entirely consistent manner if it's just refering to performance and not modification. It wouldn't be the first time that someone used two sentences to amplify or expand the point that they are making in the first. For example, I'm going to do so right here. Don Armstrong -- You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember when you are old. -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p413) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant of license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3. This would have a license grant something like: This work is free software: you may … under the terms of the GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of that license or, at your option, any later version. For the purpose of this grant of license under the GNU General Public License, the “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it; the “object code” means any non-source form of a work. This is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly useful. If you think this is a real problem, your only real option is to use GPLv3. I personally think it isn't, but that's my own opinion, not advice to you. [I'd be really surprised if anyone would ever bother to exploit this loophole in the case of graphics. I'd expect someone who could actually litigate it would almost certainly buckle under community pressure, and people who don't have the money to would likely settle for releasing the source.] Don Armstrong -- N: Why should I believe that? B: Because it's a fact. N: Fact? B: F, A, C, T... fact N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your argument? B: It IS true. -- Ploy http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to object code which was not previously included. You could easily write a set of definitions which translated the GPL into an entirely different license.[0] If GPLv2 does not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly useful. What the GPLv2 means is partly up to the intent of the persons drafting that document, but the meaning *for a particular work* must surely take strong influence from the intent of the party granting license to that work. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't influence the license of any other work, which is exactly why this is a bad idea. You're free to add any additional restrictions to your GPLed work that you want,[1] whether through interpretations or by changing the GPL itself. That doesn't obviate the need for you to comply with the terms of GPLed works which you do not own the copyright of. Don Armstrong 1: Though of course, the distributability of such works by anyone but the copyright holder may be an open question. -- No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free [...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. -- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: Clearly you cannot escape the terms of the GPL by splitting the work into different packages, otherwise everyone would do this. There are many cases where you can, actually. game+working sample data, with more complex data distributed separately is a classical example. Since the GPL does not apply to actual use, and game+working sample data forms a work on its own, there's no problem here. It's the same issue with a standard interface and GPL code; if there's a documented interface, and things that are legitimately separate works can be plugged in, everything is perfectly fine. That said, there's no reason *not* to distribute the data under the same license as the codebase. Finally, please refrain from attacking other people on this list: casting aspersions on others in the process of making an argument makes others less likely to listen to that argument (or even future arguments made) at all. Don Armstrong -- America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of socially responsible centurions. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's freedom to exploit the ASP loophole. I don't believe anyone here has argued that people exploiting the ASP loophole is a good thing, so that impression is likely due to preconceived goals held for the outcome of this discussion. This discussion is about the way in which the AGPL closes the ASP loophole and whether that way is or is not in conflict with the DFSG. Secondarily, whether it is possible for Debian and/or Debian's user's to satisfy the terms of the AGPL as a practical matter. Discussions as to whether the AGPL is a good thing, or whether the DFSG should be modified (assuming it needs to be) are tertiary to determining whether it complies with the DFSG or not, and whether Debian can actually satisfy the AGPL. We may have to go there eventually, but without resolving the first questions, going there is premature. Please, help us all by working to address the first to questions in the framework of the DFSG. Don Armstrong -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of math instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here. And the link has to go to somewhere where the source actually exists. Try doing that currently for a package and all of the package's recursive dependencies which was in testing 3 months ago, but has since been superseded. I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing source for all other packages. We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We (generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped distributing the binary. The AGPL requires distribution of source at any time that the application is used. The GPL does not. This is part and parcel of the ASP loophole that the AGPL is trying to close, and the very reason that the AGPL exists in the first place. Are you saying the burden is going to be in updating those links that say where to get the source, making the patchwork for packaging AGPL software more tedious? The GPL says three years, right? No, the path through the GPL that we use says equivalent access. (We distribute binaries under 6d precisely so our mirror operators do not have to deal with the tedious bookkeeping of satifying 6c.) [I really recommend reading the GPL and AGPL strongly; it's a necessary pre-requisite for any discussion of them.] Don Armstrong 1: There are probably some exceptions out there; ISTR archive.d.o only having source in some cases. -- The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila -- Mitch Ratcliffe http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: The AGPLv3 only requires the distribution of /modified/ source. The things that Debian distributes which are not modified are vanishingly small (and all of the examples I can think of are cases where Debian Developers are the upstream too.) So we're going to be discussing things which are modified in all cases. If Debian distributes their packaged version, and that version is served by a 3rd party for other users unmodified, that 3rd party is not bound by the distribution terms of section 13. If this is actually the proper interpretation, then it renders the AGPL useless in its entirety. In short, this is the idea that section 13 only applies at the time of modification, and so long as the propagation of source works at that instant, everything is good. It's an interesting theory, and probably one that should be run by the FSF, since I'm certain it was not the intent of the drafters at all. Further, I do not read in the license that distribution of source *must* happen when the application is used. You have to make it available on a remote server, that is all. That server goes down, A server which is down does not provid[e] access to the Corresponding Source. yes it's a problem you need to solve, but it's not like the lawyers come out. If it's not being made available, you're in violation of the AGPL, and are subject to the terms of Section 8. If it's your first time, you have a 30 day grace period to cure the breech, but the second time can be fatal. So yes, the lawyers can come out and play immediately if they wish. Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, Chew more! Do more! The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee. That leaves the rest of the license intact. A court could do anything it wants. It could declare the sky mauve, require you to stand on your head with a sign that says This way to Babylon, or any number of insanities. However, when there is clearly a conservative, risk-averse position that can be taken, that's what we should take if possible. In this case, assuming that the license will remain intact is the conservative position. Don Armstrong -- G: If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do? EB: Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area. -- Somewhere in No Man's Land, BA4 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only to those who ask. The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do to the binaries, which is something that is easily solvable using the same distribution mechanism at distribution time. In this way, we don't have to even give source to those who ask.[1] The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Resolving this issue as a practical matter for all of our users all of the time is non-trivial until such a time as we have a working snapshot.d.o. [I'd be interesting in seeing someone who has an AGPLv3 work in use which actually satifies the terms of the AGPLv3 (and properly tracks upgrades of packages) without reliance on system library exemptions to avoid actually distributing the Corresponding Source.] Don Armstrong 1: Though obviously we should as good members of the FOSS community. -- Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or derring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer to achieve immortality by not dying. -- Terry Pratchet _The Color of Magic_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do to the binaries, And doesn't the AGPL too? Both the program and the source over the network? No, it requires distribution of source at use time, not distribution time. [People use a version of a program and its dependencies over a much longer time than Debian traditionally distributes it.] The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here. And the link has to go to somewhere where the source actually exists. Try doing that currently for a package and all of the package's recursive dependencies which was in testing 3 months ago, but has since been superseded. Don Armstrong -- I have no use for before and after pictures. I can't remember starting, and I'm never done. -- a softer world #221 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=221 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: As an American, I cannot export cryptographic software. As a result, I don't work on it. That doesn't prevent me from building or modifying software that utilizes those components, as those components are imported. You still have to arrange to convey the Corresponding Source, which includes these components, which means that you may be exporting or facilitating the exportation of cryptographic software. Don Armstrong -- He no longer wished to be dead. At the same time, it cannot be said that he was glad to be alive. But at least he did not resent it. He was alive, and the stubbornness of this fact had little by little begun to fascinate him -- as if he had managed to outlive himself, as if he were somehow living a posthumous life. -- Paul Auster _City of Glass_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal for you. This is not an issue. A license can't force you to do something that contradicts a higher law. It's an issue, because it means that in such cases you have no choice but to not use or distribute the work. I'm undecided as to whether it's a DFSG freeness issue, but it's certainly something to be aware of as a practical matter when it comes to distribution within Debian. Don Armstrong -- I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. -- Douglas Adams _The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Ian Jackson wrote: Miriam Ruiz writes (Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?): Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free? Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous, It's probably not onerous, but it's certainly non-trivial. The class of things that fall under Corresponding Source is not vanishingly small, and for Debian to arrange for our users to easily and trivially satisfy this requirement is going to be difficult, especially for versions which are not part of a stable release.[1] and there is an important class of sitations where that extra restriction is very important to stop someone making the code effectively proprietary. Right. I personally believe blocking this case of exploitation of Free Software is desirable; my only reservation is with the execution. [The Afferro GPL v3 is quite a bit better than the earlier versions in this regards, but there are still issues, some of which we may end up deciding we need to live with in order to obtain that class of protection.] Don Armstrong 1: It basically mandates the usage of snapshot.debian.net to provide links to the corresponding source of the version which is actually being used. I've no doubt that this the right thing to do always, but it's not something that we guarantee now. -- I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote: What I meant is that while GPL uses copyright to give people rights, it does not restrict people beyond what copyright already imposes. It's not clear that the AGPLv3 does either; public performance of a work is not a right granted by copyright law (at least in the US). Don Armstrong -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:07:18 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote: What I meant is that while GPL uses copyright to give people rights, it does not restrict people beyond what copyright already imposes. It's not clear that the AGPLv3 does either; public performance of a work is not a right granted by copyright law (at least in the US). I don't recall whether we concluded that running, say, Apache on a publicly-accessible host is a public performance of the Apache web server: I don't believe we have concluded either way about this, and frankly, I suspect that even if we had, any conclusion in this area is premature without clear precedent in multiple jurisdicitions. is this the case (at least in the US)? Unfortunatly I do not have time to dig up relevant case law (nor am I sure that it exists). That said, it seems likely a priori that this argument can be made. In light of this, claiming categorically that the AGPLv3 restricts rights beyond what copyright already does is currently unfounded. It may, or it may not. Don Armstrong -- Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you really want to test his character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Memo on video game thumbnails]
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Could you instead please give us the *text* of their response? That would make it much more accessible to followers in this discusion. Considering that the pdf is text-less, it seems clear that the text is not available. Feel free to OCR or transcribe it, though. Don Armstrong -- It was said that life was cheap in Ankh-Morpork. This was, of course, completely wrong. Life was often very expensive; you could get death for free. -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p25 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP licenses
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: The basic requirements are: (AFAIK) - not copylefted, so we can include the document in another document - suitable for documents - require changing title/authorship upon changes (see above) There's really no need to require changing the title, since official DEP can be dealt with by just distributing them with a known site and signing them with appropriate keys or similar, and you can handle derivatives simply by suggesting that they change the title. Could you recommend one? MIT/X11 with minor changes: --- Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work and associated files (the Work), to deal in the Work without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Work. THE WORK IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WORK BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE WORK. Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the contributors to this Work shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Work without prior written authorization from the contributor(s) whose name(s) are to be used. --- Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NagiosQL License
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Hendrik Frenzel wrote: i ITP nagiosql which license[0] states the New BSD License. I think this package is non-free as it restricts the distribution of source and binary packages: This is nothing more than the 1,2,4-clause BSD license with s/the University/Martin Willisegger/; it's perfectly acceptable for main. Don Armstrong -- There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions about liblouis
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Eitan Isaacson wrote: You are right that I insisted on tables being made part of the open source archive. A translator without tables is not very useful. The major reason that *** supported development of an open source translator was to encourage others throughout the world to use it as their braille translator and to develop excellent tables for their language. The world needs an excellent translator that agencies and companies can use for their own purposes without needing to continually re-invent the wheel. The GPL pretty much does this, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to impose any additional restrictions beyond what the GPL imposes. Don Armstrong -- You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember when you are old. -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p413) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: logwatch: list of copyright holders
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Willi Mann wrote: Can you explain to me what the consequences of an imcomplete list of copyright holders would be? It should make it easier for me to argue upstream. The most important one is that not having all of the copyright holders represented means that we don't actually know what terms we are able to distribute the final work. A component of a work which is unlicenced makes the entire work undistributable. Don Armstrong -- Frankly, if ignoring inane opinions and noisy people and not flaming them to crisp is bad behaviour, I have not yet achieved a state of nirvana. -- Manoj Srivastava in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: logwatch: list of copyright holders
NB: If you can keep attribution intact in the future, that would help a lot. On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Willi Mann wrote: The most important one is that not having all of the copyright holders represented means that we don't actually know what terms we are able to distribute the final work. A component of a work which is unlicenced makes the entire work undistributable. I don't understand why this is solved by a list of copyright holders. I always assumed it is solved by clear licensing terms. Please give me a clear argument, to ensure that I can convince upstream. It's not solved by having a list of the copyright holders. It is solved by having all the copyright holders agreement to the licencing terms, which is what represented refers to. What the files say isn't as important as what the licencing terms actually are. IANAL, but I don't think so, or better, I don't agree to one assumption. Simple patches are not copyrightable (so FSF doesn't require copyright transfer). You'll note that I talk about copyright holders; the component in the last sentence is refering to components which are copyrightable. That said, in the absence of legal advice to the contrary, the best course is to assume that everything is copyrighted, and get the contributor to agree to the licensing terms. On the other hand if some author, with or without copyright notice in the source code, later turns up and says, I'm copyright holder and I didn't give permission to redistribute, the judge will probably laugh at him and tell him, that he gave implicit permission by sending a patch to the project maintainer. But IANAL. Once you get to that point, you've got a problem. Expecting the legal system to act in a particular way when there are concrete steps that can easily be taken to cause it to act that way is silly. In any case, the actual state of the contributors and whether they have been contacted and have acquiesced to the licensing terms needs to be stated in the copyright file so the ftpmasters and anyone else who uses this program can make an informed decision as to whether to include it in the archive or use it themselves. Don Armstrong -- When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. -- Edmund Burke Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discoontents http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New program based on 2 differently-licensed previous ones
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Cameron Dale wrote: I'm creating a new program for Debian (not just packaging, but the entire program), and I have some questions about the license I can use. Some parts of the code are based on a previous work released under the MIT license, while some other small parts are based on GPL (v2) code from a different work. My questions are these: 1) Can I release the entire program under the GPL? Assuming that the actual MIT licensed used is compatible with the GPL, yes. 2) Do I NEED to make reference to the other works? Should I? You need to keep the author's copyright and license statements intact. 3) Can I remove the headers in the files that I have modified that state the original authors and licenses of the files? You shouldn't remove them. You should just indicate the extent of the code that is available under MIT license, and the code that is new and only available under GPL, to the extent that is possible. Don Armstrong -- Your village called. They want their idiot back. -- xkcd http://xkcd.com/c23.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ms-sys contains MBRs which are copyrighted by Microsoft
severity 425943 serious retitle 425943 ms-sys contains MBRs which are copyrighted by Microsoft thanks ms-sys contains verbatim copies of the master boot records of windows 2000 and windows 95B et al. While it would be valid to reimplement an MBR in such a way that it was functionally similar to an MBR that boots these MS operating systems, the length and expressive content of the MBR makes it rather likely that it is copyrightable, and that we have not been granted the right to distribute, nor is the assembly in question licensed in accordance with the DFSG (nor is the assembly even actually present, which falls afoul of DFSG §2). Finally, debian/copyright does not properly discuss this problem at all, nor does it mention the copyrights on syslinux's mbr or any of the other mbrs which are present. Possible solutions to the problem are: 1) Re-implement any MBRs for which the source/copyright is not available. 2) Get permission to distribute and modify the MBR from MS and distribute a disassembled and commented version; if distribution only, move ms-sys to non-free. 3) Remove ms-sys from the archive I strongly suggest if #1 or #2 doesn't occur relatively rapidly that #3 is taken as an interim measure until it can be rectified. Don Armstrong -- I shall require that [a scientific system's] logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of emperical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an emperical scientific system to be refuted by experience. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §6 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games
[Going wildly OT for fun; further messages will be sent individually.] On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Joe Smith wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What else is sheet music but a storage form of notes, timings and durations? I agrue that sheet music differs significantly from midi files, although it is generaly possible to generate one from the other with a reasonable level of accuracy. The only difference is that midi files contain per-note velocity information[1] which is slightly different from the expression information contained in sheet music. [And in any event, this system doesn't discuss velocity.] Basically, AIUI that requirement is about a machine readable representation of the notes, etc. I will agree that at least some sheet music creation software must store data in a format that qualifies. All sheet music digitally encoded is a machine readable representation of notes, duration and expression; it can't be anything else or it isn't sheet music. So you have an instrument which has to preselect a note, and another which much be pressed with exact timing. Most wind instruments satisfy that requirement. True enough. However, to find prior art for this claim would likely require we find a game system which shows players some form of sheet music representation of data stored in a more machine readable format , to which such a wind instrument is played. Midi wind instruments have existed for at least 15 years... Don Armstrong 1: There's also various after-touch midi control codes, but most of that can be expressed in music. -- Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or derring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer to achieve immortality by not dying. -- Terry Pratchet _The Color of Magic_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, John Halton wrote: 1. A game system comprising: an input apparatus which is manipulated by a player; performance data memory device which stores performance data stipulating a series of manipulations of said input apparatus arranged in correspondence with a predetermined musical piece; Interesting that they've managed to patent sheet music stored in a computer. manipulation guide device which specifies the series of manipulations of said input apparatus arranged in correspondence with said musical piece to the player based on said performance data; said performance data comprising information which specifies timings of manipulations relating to at least one timing manipulation member provided on said input apparatus, and information which specifies at least one selection manipulation member to be manipulated in correspondence with the manipulation of said timing manipulation member from a plurality of selection manipulation members provided on said input apparatus; And then continue to even more precisely define digital sheet music. Oh well; it's not like patent examiners are actually capable of understanding the patents which they are examining. Don Armstrong -- A Democracy lead by politicians and political parties, fails. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Joe Smith wrote: That is not sheet music, but more of a raw storage of notes, timings, and durations (not too unlike a midi file). What else is sheet music but a storage form of notes, timings and durations? But the key here is that this specifies that the interface must have two different types of controls. One that must be pressed with the correct timing (the strum bar on a Guitar Hero controler) as well as selection buttons that need not be pushed with exact timing, but need only be pushed in the right combination when the timing control is pushed. So you have an instrument which has to preselect a note, and another which much be pressed with exact timing. Most wind instruments satisfy that requirement. [Not that any of this really matters, but I'd be rather surprised if someone who wanted to couldn't kill this off with prior art based on the bit I've seen.] Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian WWW use OPL - which is declared non-DFSG free?
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Jari Aalto wrote: Should the WWW pages be relicensed using DFSG compatible licence? Yes, this has been discussed, and is most likely going to happen. However, it requires getting all contributors to agree, which will require a heroic effort. Don Armstrong -- A Democracy lead by politicians and political parties, fails. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trademark scope (just for the record)
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007, Rick Moen wrote: I was not suggesting that was the case. Read what I _said_, please. I was pointing out one huge clue, from the realm of everyday commerce, that should have alerted Debian users to the fact that, no, it is not true that one must ask a trademark owner's permission to use that mark. Those of us who have discussed this issue at length are quite aware of the scope of trademark law and the obvious cases where we would need permission, and where permission is not required. You'll note that in the discussion we've distinguished between functional and non-functional uses of the trademark. Finally, the precise place where trademark rights stop is necessarily a legal question; the place where we decide to compromise, a community one. Don Armstrong -- As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. -- William O. Douglas http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exporting Issues related with US laws
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Ben Finney wrote: Dererk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The developer of a software I'm about to package, faced the problem of exporting cryptography libraries outside the US, he finally turned out his view and he will make his main repository available outside the US, punctually in the U.K. On reading the whole message, I'd like to summarise for those who (like me) believe they already know the answer: Daniel Drake (a UK citizen currently living in the USA) wants to release, under the GNU LGPL, software that involves fingerprint recognition algorithms. This, according to Daniel's research into the laws, falls foul of US munitions export regulation under a category separate from cryptographic algorithms — and does *not* have an exception allowing export of free software. I don't have an answer, but I hope for a successful conclusion that allows free release of this software. Yeah, this is something that will be hard to answer. Could Daniel Drake write up a brief summation of what he's found so Debian can either get an SPI-hired laywer or the SFLC to determine what needs to be done in addition to what we're already doing so that it can be distributed from main? [It'd give us a starting point to figure out the right questions to ask a lawyer.] Don Armstrong -- The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair. -- Douglas Adams _Mostly Harmless_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Question about patent notice in copyright header of package exempi
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Michael Biebl wrote: Which contain a copyright header like this: // // Copyright 2002-2005 Adobe Systems Incorporated // All Rights Reserved. // // NOTICE: Adobe permits you to use, modify, and distribute this file // in accordance with the terms // of the Adobe license agreement accompanying it. ^-- where's the Adobe License agreement? // Adobe patent application tracking #P435, entitled 'Unique markers to // simplify embedding data of // one format in a file with a different format', inventors: Sean // Parent, Greg Gilley. // = The interesting part is the second half of the header about the patent application. I was wondering if this poses any problems (in the future) for Debian to distribute this software. TBH I don't really understand how to interpret this sentence. Really depends on what the license agreement says; if we're lucky, it allows us to use it and makes the patent not particularly usefull. Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LiDIA's statement of GPL only in mailing list archives
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: * Don Armstrong: On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: * Don Armstrong: On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, Ben Finney wrote: An email has been judged sufficient for many Debian packages, if it unambiguously specifies all of the above, and is clearly from the copyright holder. Copy and paste into the 'debian/copyright' file the part of the message that has all that information, along with that message's 'date', 'from', 'message-id' fields. Yeah; bonus points if the message is GPG signed by a key which is in and multiply connected to strongly connected set. Yeah, as if this made it a particularly authoritative source for any kind of legal statement. 8-) Short of having a notarized signed statement, it's the best we can do; while there are obviously methods of exploiting it, it's clearly better than just an e-mail. Most importantly, it allows us to have a reasonable belief that the copyright holder has actually licensed us to distribute the work. Huh? Why do you think so? In most cases, the difficult question is not whether the statement was made by the purported author, but whether the author is entitled to make that statement on behalf of the actual copyright owner. You'll note that in no case did Ben Finney or myself talk about author; we instead use copyright holder for precisely this reason. Whoever the copyright holder is (or their legal representative) needs to notify the package maintainer or Debian of the license on the code, ideally in some sort of manner that clearly comes from the copyright holder. Don Armstrong -- One day I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time. -- Steven Wright http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LiDIA's statement of GPL only in mailing list archives
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: * Don Armstrong: On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, Ben Finney wrote: An email has been judged sufficient for many Debian packages, if it unambiguously specifies all of the above, and is clearly from the copyright holder. Copy and paste into the 'debian/copyright' file the part of the message that has all that information, along with that message's 'date', 'from', 'message-id' fields. Yeah; bonus points if the message is GPG signed by a key which is in and multiply connected to strongly connected set. Yeah, as if this made it a particularly authoritative source for any kind of legal statement. 8-) Short of having a notarized signed statement, it's the best we can do; while there are obviously methods of exploiting it, it's clearly better than just an e-mail. Most importantly, it allows us to have a reasonable belief that the copyright holder has actually licensed us to distribute the work. Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LiDIA's statement of GPL only in mailing list archives
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, Ben Finney wrote: An email has been judged sufficient for many Debian packages, if it unambiguously specifies all of the above, and is clearly from the copyright holder. Copy and paste into the 'debian/copyright' file the part of the message that has all that information, along with that message's 'date', 'from', 'message-id' fields. Yeah; bonus points if the message is GPG signed by a key which is in and multiply connected to strongly connected set. Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#431883: dcraw license does not give permission to distribute modified versions or source alongside
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote: You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modified versions of dcraw.c as required by the DFSG. I don't agree with you here. It seems to me that we do have permission to distribute modified versions, provided source is included. The license does not explicitely grant the ability to create a derivative work and distribute that work. It merely talks about lawfully redistributing this code. Since it fails to specifically grant that right, we must assume that the default state (All rights reserved) applies. Secondly, it appears that we must include full source code if we've modified dcraw.c, but we don't do that. We distribute source alongside. All that is required in this license is a link to David's home page. The build process does not modify the file dcraw.c, so the footnote clause is applicable to this version of dcraw that would be included in debian. dcraw.c itself isn't currently modfied, but the package does form a derivative work at some level. You can likely argue either way, but given that a need to apply a security patch to dcraw would cause us to run afoul of the license makes it rather problematic from where I'm sitting. If the intent is to create a patch only clause, see the LPPL for an example of a patch clause which is permissible. In any case, please contact the upstream author and have him clarify the license situtation. An explicit licencing under the GPL would resolve all of this for us; Dave Coffin would still be free to offer it under additional terms if he so desired. If you need help drafting the message, let me know. Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#431883: dcraw license does not give permission to distribute modified versions or source alongside
Package: dcraw Version: 7.02-1 Severity: serious On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote: However I would appreciate it if the assembled masses of legal experts could confirm that they agree that this is the case. There's actually an even more fundamental problem with dcraw.c: /* dcraw.c -- Dave Coffin's raw photo decoder Copyright 1997-2007 by Dave Coffin, dcoffin a cybercom o net This is a command-line ANSI C program to convert raw photos from any digital camera on any computer running any operating system. No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However, to lawfully redistribute this code, you must either (a) include full source code* for all executable files containing RESTRICTED functions, (b) remove all RESTRICTED functions, re-implement them, or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted Revision of dcraw.c, or (c) purchase a license from the author. The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED since Revision 1.237. All other code remains free for all uses. *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage qualifies as full source code. $Revision: 1.387 $ $Date: 2007/06/24 00:18:52 $ */ You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modified versions of dcraw.c as required by the DFSG. Secondly, it appears that we must include full source code if we've modified dcraw.c, but we don't do that. We distribute source alongside. If you could get Dave Coffin to explicitely dual license under the GPL, that'd clarify this entire problem. [He seems to want a copyleft, which the GPL would grant.] Text like: Alternately, you can redistribute and/or modify this work under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. would do the trick. Don Armstrong -- If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something. -- Steven Wright http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#431883: dcraw license does not give permission to distribute modified versions or source alongside
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote: The license against which you have raised a bug is not the one that covers the version that is currently part of debian. The appropriate license is here: Right, but the issues present in the current version of the license are also present in the versions which we are distributing. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/dcraw/dcraw_8.39-1/dcraw.copyright You should also probably consider the text on the web page where the source is available http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ : [dcraw is] free (both gratis and libre)... and Unless otherwise noted in the source code, these programs are free for all ^ uses... The underlined section is the important point. I'm almost certain that Dave Coffin intends for the software to be free, but the dissonance between the copyright statement in ddraw.c and the DFSG has to be resolved. [It's also not clear whether free applies to the ability to modify or whether it merely means that you don't have to pay; licencing under the GPL or MIT/Expat would resolve these questions as far as I'm concerned.] My query on debian-legal was with respect to the current license text, rather than the historical license that applies to the version in debian. Yes; both issues came up in the context of re-examining the entire license, though. I've only prsented the entire new license in the bug report, since that was what the original question was about. In any event, let me know if you need any assistance or clarification in your communication with Dave. Don Armstrong -- Filing a bug is probably not going to get it fixed any faster. -- Anthony Towns http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked for that marketed it in America. And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the anticircumvention clause of the DMCA notwithstanding.] If he was charged with breaking US law on US soil, fair enough. The problem, as I see it, was that he was ... Charged with breaking US law, as a result of actions he did in Russia, in order to comply with Russian law. THAT is the lunacy (and American megalomania) of the Sklyarov debacle. Except that he wasn't. Reading the complaint and indictment would be a reasonable first start before complaining about American megalomania. [Otherwise you're indulging in the American pastime of rushing to judgement.] In addition to the demonstration, the server from which the ebook processer was distributed was located within the US, as was the payment processing stuff. You can't distribute goods in a country and remain free from being indicted when those goods violate the laws of a country, the sanity of the country's laws notwithstanding. Regardless, we're wildly OT for -legal. Don Armstrong -- When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -- Emo Philips. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of GPL v3
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked for that marketed it in America. And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the anticircumvention clause of the DMCA notwithstanding.] Don Armstrong -- It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject? -- Robert Fisk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Redistribution of graphics that includes Gentoo logo
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote: I'd like to ask if Debian packages can include graphic that includes Gentoo logo. And if so which conditions those packages need to meet. Gentoo logo artwork license is available at http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml I'm asking about this because Gentoo logo have two different license for commercial and not commercial use. And I decided to remove GRUB splash screen that shows Gentoo logo form grub-splashsimages package, as it was requested in bug #266480. This is the correct option; the logo either should be removed, replaced with the open use debian logo, replaced with a freely licensed image of your choice, or replaced with an empty image. [The main problem with the Gentoo logo is that it doesn't have a licence statement which allows users to modify the logo.] The decision as to which solution to use is of course the maintainer's. Don Armstrong -- PowerPoint is symptomatic of a certain type of bureaucratic environment: one typified by interminable presentations with lots of fussy little bullet-points and flashy dissolves and soundtracks masked into the background, to try to convince the audience that the goon behind the computer has something significant to say. -- Charles Stross _The Jennifer Morgue_ p33 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clickthrough for GPL
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it's really just that installer software like InstallShield have a EULA page by default, and the authors/Win32 packagers decide to display the GPL in there. It's not so much of an issue for NSIS as it's more flexible, but I think it's just default settings designed for proprietary software. There are a couple of these installations which are actually rather amusing, as they show the GPL, and tell you that you can accept it or not at your option, explaining that running the program is free regardless. Don Armstrong -- Herodotus says, Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all. The conscientious historian will correct these defects. -- Mark Twain _A Horse's Tail_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: legal question to a new package
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007, Christian Pinedo Zamalloa wrote: 1. Should I include *all* the authors listed in copyrights statements of all files of chessdb in debian/copyright? The main contributor are Shane (scid) and Krikby (chessdb) but other minor contributors are listed through all the source files of the program. The upstreamer's copyright file only lists Shane and Krikby and says that are other contributors and to kown them we should see the source files. If it's possible to do so, yes. If not, then indicate that the number of contributors is so large that it's not practicable to include them all and that people should look at the source to see. [The main reason why people should go through all of the contributors is so that they check that files under incorrect licences haven't suddenly snuck in.] Don Armstrong -- Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence Point. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: Two different analogous licenses might be: By distributing the covered work, you agree that the copyright holder can sue you for violations of the license. If you distribute the covered work, the licensor agrees not to sue you in any jurisdiction other than Berlin, Germany. Heck, is choice of venue actually different to the combination of those clauses? Yes; choice of venue is better written as if you distribute the convered work, you agree for all suits covering the work to be held in Berlin, Germany. [...] The current clause, though, puts the copyright holder in the dealer's seat, and the house always wins. Well, that's only true over the long term, and I don't think it's necessarily true even over the long term for court cases. Considering Sun's apparent interpretation though, they could easily rewrite this clause to be in the position of resolving abiguities of jurisdiction, or a defensive only jurisidiction clause. Either would resolve my personal problems with the CDDL, and I believe would solve the problems most -legal contributors have with the license. Don Armstrong -- Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). -- Matt Welsh http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. From the summary: If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community, have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court will have jurisdiction. The Regulation lays down a number of formalities that must be observed in such choice of jurisdiction agreements: the agreement must be in writing, or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves or, in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are aware. * Choice of jurisdiction is a general principle of private international law under which the parties to a contract are free to designate a court to rule on any disputes even though that court might not have had jurisdiction on the basis of the factors objectively connecting the contract with a particular place. Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. From the summary: If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community, have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court will have jurisdiction. True, if it's a EU country. Sorry for that omission. Signing away jurisdiction to the US is a lot more difficult. I'd have to read the actual clause in the actual law, but the summary makes it sound like just one party's existance in the EU makes the jurisdiction clause apply. In any event, in the instant case (star) germany is the chosen jurisdiction. Don Armstrong -- EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise when you step right up to a urinal and use it with a smile. Get Dr. Mary Evers' EQUAL-NOW Adapter (pat. appld. for) -- purse size, fool proof, sanitary -- comes in nine lovely, feminine, psychadelic patterns -- requires no fitting, no prescriptions. -- Robert A Heinlein _I Will Fear No Evil_ p470. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free. That's a rather unsatisfactory fix. Although it does work for most practical purposes, the inability to ship Debian CDs with the necessary docs is quite a hindrance. There's also the PR image of Debian to consider, I think. There's nothing stoping CDs with content that you feel is free enough being made. And frankly, being concerned with a PR image isn't a valid reason to compromise principles. The FSF is no more interested in its public image than Debian is. [If the FSF or Debian were, there's no doubt that RMS, myself, and the rest of us who are non-photogenic would have been hidden away long ago.] If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in its entirety. The choice is yours, really. That's unfair. I have been exclusively a Debian user since 2001. Installing GFDLed stuff from non-free is what I do, but it's inconvenient to track down those packages that aren't installed by default anymore. I agree, which is why I've personally been involved in pressuring the FSF to resolve the remaining issues in the GFDL for quite some time. In my opinion, recognizing the issues and getting them resolved is the right way forward; ignoring them because they come from the FSF is not. The moralistic tone of the installation is also problematic for me, since I'm very proud to say that all of my work is done exclusively with free software (practically the BIOS is the only non-free software I have to use anymore). This an important distinction for the mathematical and scientific work that I do (proprietary software is unscientific, etc). Deciding to use free software is quite often a moralistic stance; where your convictions and morals lie dictate how you feel about this issue. Our way or the highway isn't a nice thought either. Do you really think that the DDs that voted against putting the GFDL in non-free should fork off too? Debian is the best distro out there, and I'm very loyal to it, but I'malso very unhappy with its treatement of the GFDL, and I think this horrible mess should be fixed. If a developer is unable to accept the decision of the majority as the decision of Debian on a particular issue, that's really all that they can do. In the end, of course, the separation of works into main and non-free is necessarily a judgement based on the licenses which the works have. Anyone who disagrees with the final determination made has the ability to decide that the packages in the archive have incorrectly segregated, and filter the Packages.gz files in the archive appropriately. Regardless, in this particular case, the only way to effect the change you are calling for is to have a GR to overturn the existing GR. Discussion of the issue on this mailing list will not cause the GR to disappear. Don Armstrong -- Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Since it was requested, allow me to put forward a simple example of a case where choice of venue coupled with choice of law is suboptimal. Star is licensed under a modified CDDL license, which specifies Berlin, Germany as the choice of law and venue. If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the license under 6.1, and bring action in Berlin for copyright infringement; the maintainer and any other parties to the action (people to whom the work was distributed after notification of breech) would then have to defend themselves in Berlin instead of notifying the court that the venue was improper (or whatever the German equivalent is.) Considering the saber rattling that has come from star's upstream over precisely this issue in cdrecord, it's not so far fetched. On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. Contracts and licenses in general short-circuit the normal determination of rights under common or legislated law in some jurisdictions in some cases too. Of course; this is a refutation of the thesis that choice of venue clauses are legally void, not a claim that they are unique. Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such fails DFSG 1. You're not giving up any rights, you're gaining the right to modify and distribute the software under certain conditions, just as you are under the GPL. We don't give up rights under the GPL that we otherwise enjoy though; we only gain ones in specific circumstances. In the case of the CDDL, we lose rights even in the case where we're only using the work. You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something more than that to violate the DFSG. giving up something that you might value [or] otherwise demand compensation for applies equally well to cash money as it does to any other intangible which has value. A requirement to send an email to the licensor if you possibly can isn't cash money either, but it sure seems to be a fee to me. The DFSG are a set of *guidelines*, if you can't explain violations in simple, understandable terms, they're not violations. This is my understanding as well; I'm only explaining the application to DFSG 1 to attempt to appease strict constructionists. I'm personally using feel as shorthand for my understanding of the legal situtation regarding this clause and its relation to the DFSG That's great, but *your understanding* isn't any more important than anyone else's. I'm not claiming that it is; my point is that my understanding is not *less* important than anyone else's. I've done what everyone should do to come to an understanding. There's something fundamentally wrong with the way discussions work on debian-legal that people think that simply posting their understanding is a valuable contribution. What else can we do? We take input, we examine it, we respond with our understanding of how the input meshes together. I don't believe we're capable of presenting absolute truth. The reason why it's not is that it doesn't provide any good way of resolving disagreements: you can either revert to authority (such as ftpmaster's), you can resort to polls (such as a GR or an informal one on forums.debian.net), or you can attack people who hold different opinions in the hopes that they'll stop speaking and thus not be heard in future. Or we can try to understand the basis for our positions, and either come to a place where we agree, or have completely plumbed the argument so that we agree to disagree. This is my goal. I don't believe we've come to this position on the CDDL yet. If we end up agreeing to disagree, then we should punt, and use the GR process to decide whether the work goes in main or not, and have each side write up a explanation of the problems surrounding the license, and publicise it with those that agree signing on to it. implying that other people aren't sufficiently concerned about licensing matters, aren't actually engag[ing] the analysis with counter arguments, don't have a complete understanding of the problem in order to stop them mak[ing] a determination sounds like a pretty good match for the last case. It's very much the opposite, actually. I'd like nothing more than to have people who disagree with my understanding attack the rationale behind my understanding so at the end of the day, no matter how wrong my understanding starts, I end up getting things right. I like to believe that many -legal contributors have this mindset as well. Ultimately Debian's policy isn't going to be decided by whoever understands legal
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the license under 6.1, [...] Should someone be willing to do that, and a court is willing to go through all those steps with a choice of venue clause, what makes you think they'd not do so in the absence of one? The difference is in the cost of defending against such an action; in the normal case you have the ability to make the entire claim go away by notifying the court that the venue is improper. In the case of a choice of venue clause, you first have to invalidate the choice of venue, which increases the cost. If you're going to ignore the court case, it doesn't matter to you, but if you ever plan on travelling to germany or doing business with people in germany (or live in some part of germany that isn't close enough to berlin to defend yourself there) it can be a significant cost. we only gain ones in specific circumstances. In the case of the CDDL, we lose rights even in the case where we're only using the work. What makes you think the latter is true? I don't endorse the claim that copyright licenses can take away usage rights if you're not making use of the ability to modify or distribute that they offer you. Unlike the GPL, the CDDL doesn't separate use from modification. Since use (or at least performance of a work) is a right that is reserved to the copyright holder, you need some level of permission to do so. But even so, when you say things like I'm personally more concerned about licensing than the average developer and I [...] expect people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis with counter arguments, come to a complete understanding of the problem, and then make a determination you are saying your understanding is more important than other people's. No, I'm saying that people who disagree should engage my analysis instead of remaining silent or discarding them with offhand comments. Holding people who agree with you to that standard might be a way to start? If I had time to do so, I'd consider it. Since I don't, I content myself with trying to make sure my messages approach this standard, setting an example instead. What else can we do? We take input, we examine it, we respond with our understanding of how the input meshes together. I don't believe we're capable of presenting absolute truth. Who is we in the above? For someone who's not a regular on -legal, it doesn't sound like it includes me. I'd like to believe it includes every rational being. In any event, the important thing (afaics) isn't to have a forum where regulars can post their understanding of issues, it's to help the people you're communicating with have a better appreciation for the complexities involved in their issue and how they might choose to approach them. That can mean pointing out possible drawbacks in existing licenses, explaining tradeoffs between licenses, or suggesting alternative ways of drafting licenses that avoid having to make some tradeoffs, but it doesn't mean making the tradeoffs for other people. Almost all this happens on -legal, actually. Some of it happens more frequently on other lists, since drafting licenses is not something that -legal does, but many of the contributors to -legal are involved in making sure that new versions of licences that are drafted are obviously DFSG Free. I've personally been involved in trying to resolve the GFDL issue, making sure that the GPLv3 is DFSG free, and have been working along with Simon and a few others to try to fix the RFC issue. [In the case of the CDDL, it's interesting to note that this very issue was supposedly going to be fixed or at least looked at in an upcomming revision of the CDDL.] No, punting to a GR is not a good solution -- it's slow to come to a resolution, it annoys developers who have to inform themselves about something they'd rather not worry about, and it ends up with -legal folks complaining that the resolution doesn't make sense. If it's the case that a signficant proportion of contributors to -legal and Debian Developers feel that an improper decision has been made, there's little else that can be done besides bringing it to a GR. What would make it more welcoming? A large part of the problem is the need to continuously point out counter arguments, [...] What makes it unwelcoming is the appearance of a consensus that doesn't brook argument, even when that consensus differs significantly from that of other sections of the free software (or open source) community. The problem is that it's very difficult to know if the consensus differens from the silent majority because the silent majority is nearly silent. there are some things that are widely agreed to be free, some things that are widely agreed
