Re: Another extended BSD licence :-/
On 17.08.2010 13:39, Simon Richter wrote: Hi, I have been asked to provide packages for a small piece of software that uses this licence: This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product or c64-release, an acknowledgment in the product documentation or credits would be appreciated. Or beer! 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. 4. If you alter this software and release it, you must also provide the source. You may not turn this into yet-another-windows-only-c64- software. The software's platform independance and portability must be maintained, no x86-only assembly code (unless there's also a plain C version of it), no Windows-only API shit. If you violate this, pestilence shall come upon you, and DeeKay shall come to your house and format your harddrive to install Linux. Your C64 will be confiscated and you will be forced to use a Sinclair Spectrum ZX81 to do all your coding - with its shitty membrane keyboard! It is not a BSD like license: you must also provide the source., so nearly a copyleft with very few requirements. Anyway it is non-free, because: The software's platform independance and portability must be maintained, no x86-only assembly code (unless there's also a plain C version of it), no Windows-only API shit. This limits what/how you can modify it, which is again DFSG. What does it mean in Debian? We should write patches so that we must support Windows and MacOS X? (Or maybe on mainframe and also strange systems with maybe strange libraries?) PS: I have a C64. With this license the author reclaims the ownership of my C64 if I do POSIX-only changes. ciao cate -- 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/4c6a801e.5000...@debian.org
trademarks [Was: Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?]
Hello list, it follows some comments, corrections and questions about trademarks, based on Steve answer; not realyl relevant to the initial question/bug. On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote: If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that provided upstream under the same name, there is no license issue; this is nominative use which is not prohibited, regardless of the existence of a trademark. I don't agree. Same product don't give the authority to use the same trademark. (think about a jeans factory who produce jeans for a well-know mark. It cannot sell using the same mark on its own.). Anyway we ship different products: - different binaries (maybe they test more the compiler, the program and the dinamic links), thus our version could cause image damage if we have something broken in binary path - a lot more architectures (so broken behaviour due portability could cause image damage) - different support - different distribution channel (in principle they could track how many official (1-level) installation of various packages they have. (IIRC distribution channel can also be controlled by trademark [see grey imports]) Anyway we want security support, so we fall inevitably in your second case: If the source code is modified, and this modification requires us to give the software a different name, this is not a freeness problem - this is expressly permitted under DFSG #4. ok We do not require that the maintainer of a package pre-emptively rename the work in anticipation of such modifications; No, I think it a requirement by ftp-masters. And IIRC the Mozilla trademark problem was about our liberty to do security updates without need of a authorizations. and we routinely ship modified versions of source code using package names which match the upstream trademarks, on the grounds that package names are not trade but computer interfaces, and are thus also not trademark infringement. I was thinking because upstream allowed it (implicit license). Our internal requirement to ask for authorization to pack a software can we pack your software 'foo-bar' for Debian and others? implicitly grant us also the use of ev. trademark license for package name. It is the first time I read a motivation like yours, so I'm curious about what the others think about trademarks. ciao cate -- 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/4c6a8a4a.5010...@debian.org
Re: Are these licenses DFSG?
Florian Weimer wrote: * MJ Ray: cate wrote: Eugen Dedu wrote: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the any use doesn't include distribution of software. For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributable, It seems that the author intention was to interpret the any use in a wider manner, but this is not legally safe for us. I'd agree with that unless someone can tell me why not. Surprise, surprise---it does include distribution: ok, good! So IMHO (IANAL) the license is free according DFSG. Unfortunately this statement was not in the original bug report. The other licenses in bug report seems OK, but also this time I read only the bug report + responses: I've not looked in the sources ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Are these licenses DFSG?
Eugen Dedu wrote: Hi, We have a bug report, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses of various plugins of opal package, and I do not know if the licenses involved are DFSG-free. Could you please tell me if these plugins are allowed to be in debian main? The main license: - Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann, Technische Universitaet Berlin Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of this software. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE. As a matter of courtesy, the authors request to be informed about uses this software has found, about bugs in this software, and about any improvements that may be of general interest. Berlin, 28.11.1994 Jutta Degener Carsten Bormann - I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the any use doesn't include distribution of software. For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributable, It seems that the author intention was to interpret the any use in a wider manner, but this is not legally safe for us. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Serious problem with geoip - databases could not be build from source
Patrick Matthäi wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray schrieb: Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org wrote: GeoIP is a quite usefull library for geolocation. It has got a stable ABI/API and upstream is normaly very helpfull with patches and issues. [...] Currently I see only three options: 1) upstream decides to open his build system 2) we move it to contrib with all consequences 3) we leave it as it is 4) we deduce the build system by looking at the CSVs and how the library uses the binary dat files, then junk the upstream-built dat files. I've no idea if this is feasible, but it's another option. 5) We create a new free database. I don't think is too difficult, and I think we would have support also at high level. But it needs a lot of communication works: the term of service of IANA and the RIRs (Regional Internet Registry) forbid to spider and publish data. OTOH I really think they will make an exception for us, or in general for such good networking data. Somebody would help me contacting and convincing the RIRs about a free geoIP database? ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Intel IA32 EL License (revisited)
dann frazier wrote: A couple of years ago I started a thread about the Intel IA-32 EL License here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00198.html It didn't get much feedback and I didn't manage to find someone at Intel at that time. Recently I was put into contact with the appropriate folks at Intel and had a phone call with them today. I described our method of distribution (Internet/mirror/media) and the debconf/click-through EULA mechanism used by the sun-java packages and they believed it to be in the spirit of the license. I also noted that Debian can update and remove software, but only as part of normal processes (e.g. point releases, security updates), and can only go back so far - they seemed to believe that this was reasonable. Intel seem willing to consider modifications to the wording of the license, so I'd like to try and formulate a list of changes Debian would like to see. Yes, but the easier method is to look for an other license, already used by Intel (for similar tasks) and possibly also used by Debian in main. Please CC me on any replies. Source: http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/219773.htm License: IMPORTANT - READ BEFORE COPYING, INSTALLING OR USING. INTEL IA-32 EL LICENSE AGREEMENT This IA-32 EL License Agreement (Agreement) is entered into by and between Intel and You (the Parties). Do not copy, install, or use the materials provided under this Agreement until you have carefully read the following terms and conditions. By clicking the Accept button below, or by copying, installing, or otherwise using the IA-32 EL, You agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms of this Agreement, you are not authorized to copy, install, or use the IA-32 EL. If you are an agent or employee of a legal entity you represent and warrant that you have the authority to bind such legal entity to this Agreement. Based upon Your acceptance of the terms herein, Intel wishes to grant You the limited license set forth below. Now, therefore, the Parties agree to the following terms and conditions: At best this is non-free. I'm not sure if we can mirror such package (as done for non-free). Should mirror admins agree to such agreement, to copy the package from the main mirrors? ciao cate 1. Definitions IA-32 EL means Intel's IA-32 Execution Layer software which is composed of the following independent components: (1) IA32Exec.bin file which is translator code provided in binary form; (2) Libia32x.so file which is the interface layer between the translator to the Linux* operating system provided in source code form; (3) IA32el file which is a utility to enable IA-32 Execution Layer functionality in binary form; and (4) Suid_libia32x.so file which is an interface library to run 32bit app with suid permission in binary form Your Operating System means a Linux-based computer operating system designed for operation on Intel(R) Itanium(R) processors that You distribute with Your Itanium architecture-based platforms. Intel Update shall mean any bug fix, enhancement or other modifications to the IA-32 EL delivered by Intel to You. Upon delivery of an Intel Update by Intel to You, the Intel Update shall be deemed Code for all purposes under this license 2. License The Libia32x.so and the Suid_libia32x.so components are separately licensed to You under the Library General Public License (LGPL), Version 2, dated June 1991. With regard to IA32Exec.bin and IA32el (including Intel Updates relating thereto) and only for the term of this Agreement, Intel grants You a non-exclusive, nontransferable (without the right to sublicense except for distribution of binary code as set forth below), royalty-free license under Intel's trade secrets and copyrights to: A. Copy and use IA32Exec.bin (and Intel Updates) internally only for Your Operating System integration and maintenance purposes related to systems which include microprocessors manufactured by Intel; and distribute IA32Exec.bin (and Intel Updates) only as part of IA-32 EL, externally (including through others in the chain of manufacture or distribution) to end users. You may only distribute IA32Exec.bin, without modification, as part of the IA-32 EL one-for-one with Your Operating System as incorporated into Your computer system and not as a stand-alone item (except for evaluation, trial and other copies of Your Operating System licensed by You on a royalty free basis) and under a license agreement that has terms and conditions at least as restrictive as those set forth in Exhibit B, (Requirements for End User License Agreements); except that You may distribute the Intel Updates to fix and/or replace such previously released IA-32 EL without distribution of Your Operating System. B. You may not copy, modify, rent, sell, distribute, sublicense or transfer any part of IA32Exec.bin
Re: Verifying licence for packaging
Jeff Epler wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 01:48:47AM +0300, Michael Gvirtzman wrote: Full text as of this date: Golden Rules Organizer v1.4 - End User License Agreement -- Copyright © 2008-2009, Michael Gvirtzman. All rights not expressly granted here are reserved by copyright owner. Software and User's Manual are registered with the US Copyright Office. Does this license expressly grant some rights? Where? BTW the copyright law explicitly grants some rights to users. You cannot reserve such rights. I find the license very confusing, thus it will give you and the recipient troubles. I suggest you: - use a well know license or - get a real advice from a lawyer to write a license Debian distribution need free (as free speech) software. Check e.g. - http://www.debian.org/intro/free - http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090530071729.gh30...@matthew.ath.cx, Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? Copyright (at least in some important jurisdiction) applies for life + 70 years, so it still applies and would now be held by the author's estate. Copyright in pretty much ALL jurisdictions (ie not including, iirc, places like North Korea) lasts for a *minimum* of 50 calendar years after creation. *minimum* ? Not really. Copyrights disappear when there are no copyright holders (failed bankrupts procedure and lack of heirs, when public entities doesn't take the assets). On some countries (like UK, IIRC) there are also orphaned works. Anyway these cases doesn't make it GPL compatible. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
ha...@volny.cz wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but: 1) It is clear that the author wished his work to be distributed as freely as circumstances allow. Is it really clear? So why did not he distribute the sources? ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Empty source file with proprietary header
Mehdi Dogguy wrote: Hi all, While packaging a software for Debian, I found an empty file under a proprietary license in upstream's tarball. The file contains only the header which says who is the copyright holder and the license under which it was released. There is no source code in it, at all. I was wondering whether such file can be part of a Debian package (the .orig tarball)? Maybe: we don't know the proprietary license, so we cannot answer to this question. FTM, I removed those files and made a clean dfsg tarball. I'm not sure that it is good and dfsg. Do other files include such header file? Maybe the author wanted to put the proprietary license in other files, in a geek manner. Anyway, you should ask upstreams about this header file, and also ask them to remove it, if it is possible. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: is the Clearthought Software License free?
Andrew Donnellan wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:23 PM, jochen georges gnu...@gnugeo.de wrote: hello debian-legal team, i wrote a small java-app which i want to make a deian package from. the code, that i wrote is under gpl, but i used the TableLayout-library which has the following licence (see:https://tablelayout.dev.java.net/files/documents/3495/59349/License.txt) /* * * * The Clearthought Software License, Version 1.0 * * Copyright (c) 2001 Daniel Barbalace. All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * 2. The original software may not be altered. However, the classes *provided may be subclasses as long as the subclasses are not *packaged in the info.clearthought package or any subpackage of *info.clearthought. The original software may not be altered - it's non-free, unfortunately :( IMHO this point has an other meaning: if you alter the code, you need to change the name (class name), i.e. the modified file could be info.mymymy.clearthought. I think it is covered by Integrity of The Author's Source Code, but I'm not sure to interpret the point 2 in the right way. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
Robert Millan wrote: For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD, the second uses LGPL 2.1 or later and the third uses GPL 3 then the Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to the work as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to strip out parts of the work, and use whatever licence the author granted. Yeah, I understand the combined result is GPLv3; the only doubt I have is whether it's necessary to explicitly mention each license. The combined result is different/new work (with a own license), but derived from other works. Don't confuse single file with combined results. But every file has author(s) and license(s), which are replaceable only by authors. LGPL allow you to use LGPL as a GPL license, but not to change it. If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only, *practically* the file is only GPL, but the original code is still LGPL, so better to explicit write also the LGPL. (or better: use an other file for your changes: one license per file) ciao cate If it's not, is there anything else we should take care of? Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
Dave Howe wrote: MJ Ray wrote: So where did the above PDF and PS are programming languages argument come from? References, please! PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones. However, they are entirely interpreted - the output of a pdf compiler would be a static image, not a pdf document, as pdf is the source (if that makes sense) PDF and PS documents are often mechanically generated - they are transformed from some other document format - but that doesn't mean that they are compiled code. The transform is more like a preprocessor pass - the output is still valid source, just not the same source as was originally written. I think the discussion went off-topic. The terms source language, compiler etc. are not so important in pure technical term. I think 90% of people agree that C code passed to an obfuscation filter is not more source code, but it is still written in C. [But passing to indent is still source] So we have the same mechanism with PS and PDF. Are the sources easily modifiable? Are the sources in the form that upstream would normally use to modify it? So sometime PDF and PS are really sources (in legal term), but most of time they are an intermediate (and obfuscated) format. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
FLTK License
Hello list! I'm sponsoring the libflkt2, but I've some troubles with the FLTK licenses [included at the end of this message]. The FLTK License, May 2001 is included in the proposed libfltk2, and the FLTK License, December 2001 is already included in Debian, in libfltk1.1. - It seems it to fail the desert island test - Is it linkable to GPL programs? I don't think so, because extra restrictions. Note: apt-cache rdepends libfltk1.1 gives a long list of potential problems. - old discussion on debian-legal (in 1998-1999) seems to recommending linking GPL programs with fltk instead of other libraries (with problematic licenses). Note: I don't know the fltk licenses before 2001. What do you thing? What to do with existing packages? ciao cate === FLTK License, May 2001 === FLTK License Ammended May 4, 2001 The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public License apply for the FLTK library: 1. Modifications to the FLTK configure script, config header file, and makefiles by themselves to support a specific platform do not constitute a modified or derived work. The authors do request that such modifications be contributed to the FLTK project - send all contributions to fltk-b...@fltk.org. 2. Widgets that are subclassed from FLTK widgets do not constitute a derived work. 3. Static linking of applications and widgets to the FLTK library does not constitute a derived work and does not require the author to provide source code for the application or widget, use the shared FLTK libraries, or link their applications or widgets against a user version of FLTK. If the author links the application or widget to a modified version of FLTK, then the changes to FLTK must be provided under the terms in sections 1, 2, and 4. 4. Authors that develop applications and widgets that use FLTK must include the following statement in their user documentation: [program/widget] is based in part on the work of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). === FLTK License, December 2001 === FLTK License December 11, 2001 The FLTK library and included programs are provided under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL) with the following exceptions: 1. Modifications to the FLTK configure script, config header file, and makefiles by themselves to support a specific platform do not constitute a modified or derivative work. The authors do request that such modifications be contributed to the FLTK project - send all contributions to fltk-b...@fltk.org. 2. Widgets that are subclassed from FLTK widgets do not constitute a derivative work. 3. Static linking of applications and widgets to the FLTK library does not constitute a derivative work and does not require the author to provide source code for the application or widget, use the shared FLTK libraries, or link their applications or widgets against a user-supplied version of FLTK. If you link the application or widget to a modified version of FLTK, then the changes to FLTK must be provided under the terms of the LGPL in sections 1, 2, and 4. 4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor do you have to identify the FLTK license in your program or documentation as required by section 6 of the LGPL. However, programs must still identify their use of FLTK. The following example statement can be included in user documentation to satisfy this requirement: [program/widget] is based in part on the work of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). end of quote -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Missing licenses in upstream source files
Ben Finney wrote: [note: quotations in random order] (We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.) Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g. the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of license. That's not enough for Debian to know the rights of recipients: mere inclusion of license terms is not a grant of license under those terms. I don't agree. Only in journals you will find copyright notice and author on every pages. Don't mean that there are copyright problem on my favorite book, in inner pages. I think it the same for sources. You could write the license (or a reference) on every file, or you could write only a general file (e.g. COPYING), if it is clear that the license cover all the files. This is true particularly for small programs. On large programs or when there are multiple licenses I recommend upstreams to put a copyright notice and license for every important file (i.e. sources and non-trivial header files). IANAL, but other contributors are not listed in the legal header, but still copyright owner, so the same assumptions we do: not all contributor are listed, and same license as top header we could do the same assumptions for file without explicit legal notice (but with a top level license and an AUTHOR-like file). See below: What is needed is an explicit copyright notice and grant of license. An example: Copyright 2009 Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au You have permission to copy, modify, and redistribute under the terms of the WTFPL. For full license terms, see LICENSE.txt. That is, we need the copyright status (who holds it, when did it begin) and explicit grant of license (what the recipient is permitted to do with the work) to be unambiguous for every part of the work. Or in other words, you need enough explicit information, from the copyright holder, to write the ‘debian/copyright’ file. If the referenced file has *all* of that, and every part of the work is unambiguously covered by it, it's enough. There are not such thing as unambiguous ;-) I sent you few patches: patch A: a patch to correct a typo patch B: a patch to enhance the WTFP (code-only patch, without touching the legal header). and I did a NMU: patch C: a not yet defined patch You (as most of upstream) incorporated patches A and B in your sources, without further reference (but maybe on a CREDIT file or changelog). Are you still the only copyright owner? I don't think so. What license on my modification? the same license (or public domain?) If you want to relicense the program to WTFAOPL, did you need my permission? A tangent question: What about patch C: note in debian/copyright I wrote that packing things are licensed with the WTFPL4 [Note that dh-make on GPL2 only program uses GPL3 for packaging license]. My interpretation is that patch C will have the original license and only debian/* have the WTFPL4. ciao cate -- 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
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. try the counterattack method: - he has checked the licenses of original layout? (Surely was not a dream that give him the Dvorak base, probably he copied layout from an existing implementation, not from papers) - Why he can copy the layout from others, but he restrict other to copy his layout? Usually such method works: people realize that what they considered own was not really own. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Short copyright notice in script file
Alexander Block wrote: Hello, I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying. I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston matt @ ucc asn au # This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose. Is it ok to use such code in debian packages? No mention about distribution of code and distribution of modified code. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: firmware-nonfree : ipw2200 ?
Frank Lin PIAT wrote: Hirllow On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 08:05 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:15:10AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: I have just tested Lenny on a laptop[1] with an Intel Pro Wireless 2200 chipset. As you probably known the kernel module ipw2200 requires a non-free firmware. - Do you know why the firmware was never shipped in Debian? Because its license, contrary to other intel wireless firmware license forbids redistributing. Which means we can't even distribute it in non-free. - If I provide a patch, do you think if have a chance to be in Lenny? Except if the license changed, no chance. That would be too bad... but only Intel should be blamed. From my experiences, Intel changes firmware licenses, if we ask. If you point to other acceptable (for our non-free) Intel firmware license, it is better. Ah, it could simplify the task, if you tell him that it would easier the inclusion in Ubuntu. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: codecs and totem
Alexander Rozhkov wrote: Good day. I have a question: if I use totem or vlc (both provided by debian) to watch commercially distributed DVD discs, do I have to pay royalty for using codecs? If yes, to whom should I pay? Hello Alexander, As far I know, Debian doesn't distribute codecs and software requiring royalties. If you see such software in official Debian, report it as a bug! For software distributed outside Debian, it is difficult to know. On most countries software patents are not valid, so codecs could be royalty free (but please check copyright licenses). On some countries also the CSS libaries are legal. Anyway I'm not a layer, and I don't know the law of you country, so take as hints for further discussion. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intel microcode CPU (#3)
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: / These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of / installation in the BIOS or Operating System of computer systems / which include a Genuine Intel microprocessor sold or distributed / to or by you. You are not authorized to use this material for / any other purpose. I'm closing the thread. In last version Intel deleted this paragraph, so I think it was a left over the transition. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: logwatch: list of copyright holders
Don Armstrong wrote: 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. 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). IMHO the patches sent to a upstream author which doesn't patch the original copyright (adding a name or a copyright line) should be interpreted as the above case. IMHO the author implicit acknowledges that the patch is simple and doesn't include enough intellectual work. So I interpret the patch as outside copyright laws So from CVS (as you mentioned) should give an idea if such contributions are outside the copyright laws. For new files the situation is clearly different. How did the upstream author find the patch and files of other authors? I assume that you and other send patches to CVS or to the upstream author for inclusion. If the author included code from other project, the license of the imported code should be know. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intel microcode CPU (#3)
Joe Smith wrote: / These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of / installation in the BIOS or Operating System of computer systems / which include a Genuine Intel microprocessor sold or distributed / to or by you. You are not authorized to use this material for / any other purpose. I did not read or comment on the earlier licences. However, My concerns are about the last paragraph (the only one that now I quoted). In previous versions, the license was only this paragraph, and it was decided that it was not enough free for debian (or better not enough clear to be 100% safe). I agree that the first part of new license is enough for non-free. BTW, I saw the same license (without the last paragraph) in an other ITP firmware package. So my concerns are on mixing the two licenses. So the top part sounds fine. From that alone it sounds distributable. That buttom part seems ok to me as well. It is limiting it's use, but that is not unexpected in non-free licences. I agree. Now I read it as the purpose (limit of use) of the file. Previously I read it also as distribution right, which was the main problem of the old license: it was not really explicit the distribution right, which I (wrongly) assumed (also because of an email permissions from Intel). ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing of iso-codes
Tobias Toedter wrote: Hi, we, the maintainers of iso-codes[1], are currently discussing a licensing issue and are seeking some opinions from -legal subscribers. The problem is as follows: The package iso-codes provides XML files with certain ISO lists (e.g. language codes, country codes etc.) and translations of those lists in .mo form. We do not provide a library or any other program for accessing that data, just the data itself. Would it be possible for non-free programs to use that data (XML files and translations) if iso-codes is licensed under GPL? Or would we need to use the LGPL for this? I don't understand the purpose of your question ;-) If you want that non free program will use your XML, why do you publish it with a GPL or LGPL license? I think it is better to publish it in public domain on with one simple BSD or MIT license. Note: you question is about linking part of GPL, but if an non free program could use the code, it could also uses a second override file, so the modifing protection of GPL become inefective. or I missed something? ciao cate PS: IANAL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 00:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : Hi all, I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is actually used to impose specific restrictions. PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development. It is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3. Its licensing page[2] states: | Under section 7 of the GPLv3 we require additional terms specific to | the types of software created using PySoy. The term game authors | should be aware of is that the PySoy and GPLv3 logos must be presented | to players in a legible manner and the GPLv3 text be accessible to | players (section 7b). | [...] | We provide textures for these logos and an easy mechanism to display | the GPLv3 license text as builtin classes so that this is as painless | as possible. Now I wonder: is this restriction really within the bounds of what section 7b allows to impose? I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to link the program with a library that requires preservation of reasonable legal notices. I agree. Requiring preservation of specified reasonable so is preservation: you cannot add further attributions (but if you write all the program, and you link to library that allow additional restrictions. Anyway it is not compatible with GPLv2 libraries. But I've the doubt with reasonable. I don't think logo are reasonable either because logos have normally additional restrictions (trademarks, but i think also a GPLv3 logo is not enough for an attribution), and because of the same problems of old BSD license. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (C) vs ©
Ben Finney wrote: Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have heard that in copyright declarations like: Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. All rights reserved. --- it is incorrect to use (C) in place of the symbol © which is the strict copyright symbol. Is this so? If yes, why? It's possibly not a valid copyright indicator. The © symbol is unambiguous under the law, and thus preferred. unambiguous under the law, but technical ambiguous. What character encoding should be used? IMHO (c) is the character representation of the copyright symbol, and when you print it, you should substitute with the correct symbol, as the ff, ffl, fl, .. ligatures. Anyway when the symbol is not printed, it should be written in some other form (a sequence of bits, which are not law defined), so IMHO any obvious representation should be valid. IANAL ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#282667: microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is
Jan Minar wrote: Package: microcode.ctl Version: 1.11-1 Severity: normal Hi, people! CC-ing upstream, as it applies to them rather than to Debian, and debian-legal, as it will end up there anyways. IMO, the microcode update license forbids the way of re-distribution as it is used currently by the Debian package (postinst downloads it from a website), as well as the upstream distribution (downloadable from a website). | /+++ | / Copyright Intel Corporation, 1995, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 02, 03, 04. | / | / These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of | / installation in the BIOS or Operating System of computer systems | / which include a Genuine Intel microprocessor sold or distributed ^^^ | / to or by you. You are not authorized to use this material for | / any other purpose. | /--- -- I think neither Debian nor upstream satisfies this. If this was true users would have to obtain the update manually (not that bad idea). Intel should be asked to ``clarify'' their license. -- This will take a long time, presumably, but as the code is non-free, therefore not distributed in Debian, and upstream will not likely remove it, and it's a bugfix anyway, who cares. debian-legal already clarified this. 1- Intel sent to us microcode and allowed us to distribute it. (see archieve of debian-legal) 2- Debian distributes an operating System, so we are allowed to distribute it. ciao cate
xchat is now shareware in windoze
Hello. Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat), I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences: Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed? A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still download the source code, released under the G.P.L. You may use X-Chat for Windows for free for 30 days. If, after this time, you would like to continue using the product, you are required to register. Registration is a one time fee of $20 USD (United States Dollars) or $25 AUD (Australian Dollars). You may pay using the Paymate service below, which accepts credit cards in both currencies. Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required* a registration. So I propose to the debian maintainer, not to send patch to upstream, without an explicit declaration that the patches are licensed GPL-only and thus not available in non GPL code. legal team: do you think it is good such requirement? What do you think about such mix free/shareware in debian? [note that I don't think all patch authors relicensed the code] ciao cate
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Danilo Piazzalunga wrote: Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. Apparently, this is in contrast with the GPL (see [2]). I'd just like to be sure before (politely) informing the authors of this. A quote from the download page follows: E4 Toolbox is redistributable software. You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation. For the moment E4 Toolbox is distributed in a encrypted zip file. CONTACT us to get the password. IANAL, but IMO it is legal. GPL requires that vendor give you the sources of binary that you get from them. So to have sources of GPL, you may need to pay. The good thing, after you have the code, you can freely redistribute, and so nobody had to buy the sources. In other word: if you buy or download legally the GPL binary files, they MUST give for free (or small media cost) the sources. There is no requirment to make public GPL software. Immagine if a lot of people ask me about release some of my not finished GPL software? My internet band and forces will interrupt to much my work! ciao cate
Re: CA certificates
Nathanael Nerode wrote: Florian Weimer wrote: I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate certificates): https://www.verisign.com/repository/rpa.html The license seems to violate DFSG §6. It also fails the Desert Island test. Can we all say: WW! In this case I believe we had better hope that the certificates are not copyrightable. I don't think public keys are by any stretch. In some countries (USA and Germany?) lists/databases are copyrightable, even is single data is not! (phone book, games scores and statistics,...) ciao cate
Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards
Brian M. Carlson wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:12:28PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote: As mentioned in my previous mail, I am creating a package for hashcash. The source for the package includes a document, fip180-1.txt, which is a copy of the Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 180-1 (the definition for SHA-1). I am unable to determine whether or not FIPS documents are free, and was wondering if anyone had any experience with that. The FIPS home page is: http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/ Again, please cc me as I am not subscribed. All works of the United States Government (of which FIPS 180-1 is one) are ineligible for copyright and are explicitly public domain. There are public domain only in the United States, IIRC cate
Re: debian-legal review of licenses
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: * Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-13 04:09]: Hm, that would involve somebody monitoring the OSI lists, because an Are the OSI lists public (sorry, cannot check, I'm off-line at the moment waiting for my plane to Malaga)? Is anyone from -legal following them already? OSI lista are public, and I read the license-discuss list. There are a lot of off-topic flames, but very costructive comments on how to improve licenses unsolicited approach to the licensor *after* the OSI process has finished cannot help but be interpreted as rude. I'm not sure if this is true. Say someone approaches OSI with their license, the OSI has their decision making process and announces that the license is OSI compliant. -legal reads the license and find some issues why the license is not DFSG-free. Someone then contact the author of the license, basically saying We noticed that you have just been OSI certified, but we found that it does not adhere to the DFSG because of this and that. The DFSG is about this and that, and this is why it is different to the OSI guidelines and we why feel it is important to comply with the DFSG. I don't think such a mail would be perceived as rude. Some people might ignore it and not care, but I cannot see people seeing it as rude. OSI guidelines are very similar to ours (they based from our DFSG). It would interessting to find the differences and see if we should update our DFSG. ciao cate
Re: Legal status of software licences
Aigars Mahinovs wrote: Hello all I am reading a document by OSDL, namely: http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is the click trough licence agreement or contracts behind shrinkwrap. First, is this true? If it is then I can imagine such scenario: Hacker A opens the shrinkwrap, and hacks install to disable the licence agreement and the serial number Developer B download the resulting install from Donkey and burns a CD User C gets the CD as a present (or buys it) from B and installs the programm Is C doing anything illegal in this case? He has not opened the shrinkwrap (thus not agreed to the licence agreement on the box). He has not agreed to the licence at install time. He has not copied the software (thus not disturbing copyright law) He is simply using the software! :) Please tell me this isn't true! Maybe. C is doing something illegal if it know that the copy is not a legal copy. Else he can use the copy until someone tell him that it is illegal, and he can sue B, to have a real/legal copy. ciao cate
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson wrote: Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE ===
Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.19
Hello! The part III, headers files. Some questions about licences, they should be DFSG compatible, but I see some small problems. Although the DWN of two weeks ago, the check is not yet terminated, (and there is still a lot of works to do, but the remaining parts are less importat: the driver and arch are not so vital, if we found a bad license, the exclusion of some drivers should not give us much troubles). /* * AGPGART module version 0.99 * Copyright (C) 1999 Jeff Hartmann * Copyright (C) 1999 Precision Insight, Inc. * Copyright (C) 1999 Xi Graphics, Inc. * * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the * Software 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 Software. * * THE SOFTWARE 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 * JEFF HARTMANN, OR ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTORS 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 SOFTWARE * OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. * */ This is free, ok? But with the long list of action we can take don't include the compiletion and distribution of binary. Is this included in use and publish? * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included * in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Portions of the Software includes also the binary? Nobody include such notices in binary! ciao giacomo [Another similar licence, but no problem here (dual licence)] /* linux/aio_abi.h * * Copyright 2000,2001,2002 Red Hat. * * Written by Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Distribute under the terms of the GPLv2 (see ../../COPYING) or under * the following terms. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its * documentation is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright * notice appears in all copies. This software is provided without any * warranty, express or implied. Red Hat makes no representations about * the suitability of this software for any purpose. * * IN NO EVENT SHALL RED HAT BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, * SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF * THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF RED HAT HAS BEEN ADVISED * OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. * * RED HAT DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN AS IS BASIS, AND * RED HAT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, * ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. */
Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.20
/* * Linux ARCnet driver - COM20020 chipset support - function declarations * * Written 1997 by David Woodhouse. * Written 1994-1999 by Avery Pennarun. * Derived from skeleton.c by Donald Becker. * * Special thanks to Contemporary Controls, Inc. (www.ccontrols.com) * for sponsoring the further development of this driver. * * ** * * The original copyright of skeleton.c was as follows: * * skeleton.c Written 1993 by Donald Becker. * Copyright 1993 United States Government as represented by the * Director, National Security Agency. This software may only be used * and distributed according to the terms of the GNU General Public License as * modified by SRC, incorporated herein by reference. * * ** * * For more details, see drivers/net/arcnet.c * * ** */ The question: according to the terms of the GNU General Public License as modified by SRC, incorporated herein by reference. modified by SRC, what it means ? BTW what really do incorporated herein by reference. mean? ciao giacomo
Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.21
/* * if_ppp.h - Point-to-Point Protocol definitions. * * Copyright (c) 1989 Carnegie Mellon University. * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, * advertising materials, and other materials related to such * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed * by Carnegie Mellon University. The name of the * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * */ Should Debian include an aknowledge in every our publications, HOWTO,... and put some extra line in every binary kernel package? ciao giacomo
Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.22
Hello. In parport.h header file: /* * Any part of this program may be used in documents licensed under * the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version * published by the Free Software Foundation. */ No other notices. 1) Do this file be licensed under GPL2 (as main COPYING) 2) GFDL only for documentation? 3) GPL still valid for documentation? Or documentaion are licensed only with GFDL, so extra restriction, thus no more GPLable? ciao giacomo
