Re: question about Good/Evil in a license
Hi, Am Sonntag, den 20.09.2009, 01:10 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise: Trivially non-free (DFSG #6). Also, the word evil is far too subjective to be meaningful in a license. how about trivially free, since the sentence, as you say, is not meaningful in a license and thus has no effect? :-) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 03.09.2008, 20:13 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli: If being usable in an SSH session counts as supporting remote interaction through a computer network, then basically every program supports such interaction! This would mean that any AfferoGPLv3'ed program must comply with the restrictions of section 13, even when it is not designed to be used through a network. I mean, if some AfferoGPLv3'ed code is included in a modified version of, say, OpenOffice.org, the modifier has to offer access to the whole Corresponding Source, if he/she installs his/her modified version on a box with an SSH server and at least one other user... I seem to remember that the parenthetical (if your version supports such interaction) is there just to avoid to extend the restriction to programs not specifically designed for network use. But maybe I am wrong. If I am wrong, the AfferoGPLv3 is even worse than I thought! Hmmm, let’s see: If some company takes a hypothetical AGPL-licensed variant of OpenOffice, improves it heavily and incompatibly, and it becomes the new de-facto standard for office document exchange – but they don’t distribute it, but put it on terminal servers, maybe with expensive access ... ... then, in the spirit of Free Software, I’ll be thankful that due to the AGPL I, as a user, can get the source from it. Therefore, not by word-by-word interpretation, but by respecting the spirit of the DFSG in the light of new developments, I consider AGPL licensed works as acceptable for Debian. (This is, in a sense, a political statement.) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2004, 16:36 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen: Now, if the registration/validation logic is not part of those GPL'd sources, then we have a problem. If it only applies to the windows sources/binary, we don't have a problem. If anybody has a problem, then those who contributed GPLed code or whose GPLed code somehow else made their way into the windows sources, but did not agree with that licencing. Or is there anything that actually and legally should worry debian, besides a possible different view on free software from some upstream author? thx, nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Re: most liberal license
Hi Harald, Is there some other as free as public domain license? I don't like to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\ I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org, and is well known and widely used. (Like you, I was looking for a shortest licence once, and after consulting d-legal, I stuck to the MIT-Licence.) Link: http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Gruesse, nomeata
Re: advice regarding doom-engine licences
Hi, I didn't check the sources, but from your description, if Am Di, den 10.08.2004 schrieb Jon Dowland um 17:12: They later released it under the GPL licence[2]. is true, then 1) The original ID licence and the heretic/hexen licence are both incompatible with the GPL and thus attempts to mix them result in a combination which cannot be included in debian nor non-free. Both licences are additionally not DFSG free. is not true, since if they distribute the whole source as GPL licenced, it does not matter if they also distribute it under a different licence - we just take and use the GPL and everything is fine. The ID-licence therefore does not touch us. (Assuming of course, that the _whole_ source was once distributed by ID under the terms of the GPL) so far my pov, nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: scummvm dependent games: non-free?
Hi, Am Fr, den 25.06.2004 schrieb Gerfried Fuchs um 12:11: 3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes reselling the game as an individual item. Doesn't this violate point 1 of the DFSG? AFAIK it is ok, as long as it is allowed to distribute it as part of something (like Debian). Similar situation as with Bitstream's Vera font: (quote from doc/copyright): The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by itself. Basically the same it, and seems to be free. At least the splash screen of Flight of the Amazon Queen when you start it is misleading at large, too: Unauthorized copying, reproduction, adoption, rental, public performance, broadcast or other exploitation of this product is strictly prohibited and constitutes a violation of applicable laws which may give rise to both civil liability and criminal penalties. (hand typed and thus typos might be in it) Should be fixed, but it's not RC. Feel free to file a bug. nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Unfortunate Licence Mix
Hi, I was just about to package psybnc[1], a popular irc bouncer. A closer look into the src/ dir revealed that the author seems to have followed the Free Software spirit by not re-inventing a lot of wheels, but didn't pay close attention to legal stuff... His own works are GPLed, and have correct copyright notes. But there are two files that worry me: snprintf.c: /* * changed slightly for the use in psyBNC 2.2.1 by psychoid * changed a little bit more for 2.2.2. We always use this * in psybnc now, but without any support of %n or %p. Hope * you love the fact no format bugs can be exploited, even if you * are able to bypass the formatstring-filter which is * built into psybnc since version 1.1 :) */ /* * Copyright (c) 1995-1999 The Apache Group. 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. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in *the documentation and/or other materials provided with the *distribution. * * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this *software must display the following acknowledgment: *This product includes software developed by the Apache Group *for use in the Apache HTTP server project (http://www.apache.org/). * * 4. The names Apache Server and Apache Group must not be used to *endorse or promote products derived from this software without *prior written permission. For written permission, please contact *[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called Apache *nor may Apache appear in their names without prior written *permission of the Apache Group. * * 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following *acknowledgment: *This product includes software developed by the Apache Group *for use in the Apache HTTP server project (http://www.apache.org/). * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE APACHE GROUP ``AS IS'' AND ANY * EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE APACHE GROUP OR * ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT * NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, * STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED * OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. * * * This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many * individuals on behalf of the Apache Group and was originally based * on public domain software written at the National Center for * Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. * For more information on the Apache Group and the Apache HTTP server * project, please see http://www.apache.org/. * * This code is based on, and used with the permission of, the * SIO stdio-replacement strx_* functions by Panos Tsirigotis * [EMAIL PROTECTED] for xinetd. */ (sorry for posting the whole thing, but with legal stuff, I better not cut away stuff that might be important). And the second file, bsd-setenv.c: /* * Copyright (c) 1987 Regents of the University of California. * 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. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the University of * California, Berkeley and its contributors. * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors *may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software *without specific prior written permission.
Licence problems with psybnc
Hi Psychoid, I am looking into packaging psybnc for debian (of course with proper credit). Unfortunately, there are some problems: You include two files (snprintf.c, bsd-setenv.c) with GPL-incompatible licenses. I asked for advice[1] on debian legal, here is a summary for you. bsd-setenv.c: Is under the 4-clause BSD licence. But since the copyright holder is the Regents of the University of California, the advertising clause is superseded by ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change , so you could just include a note in your tarball to that effect. snprintf.c: Is under the Apache License, version 1.0, which is incompatible with the GPL, too. I quote: However, depending on how much SIO differs from stdio, it might be possible to replace this with code from glibc or from some other stdio implementation. Maybe that is a viable solution for you. Unfortunately, just taking the same file from a newer apache distribution does not help, as the Apache Licence v2 isn't GPL-compatible either. I would love to see psybnc in debian. I use it daily and have so for 2 years soon - it is the best multi-network bouncer I found. I hope that these issues can be resolved quickly. Thank you, nomeata [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00293.html -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: The QPL licence
Hi, I ee a problem with 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. What if I have my family-only private piece of software that I use together with the Software, and give that to my brother (i.e. I distribute it), and the initial developer knows about it, he can make me give it to him? Badly constructed examples, but this smells non-free to me. nomeata Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb martin f krafft um 16:38: Sorry, this should have gone to -legal straight, not first to -devel. Please CC me on replies! I would like to package a software released under the QPL licence: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/libcwd/libcwd/LICENSE.QPL?rev=1.1 It *seems* that the QPL is DFSG-free, but I would like to have confirming voices. It disallows the source code to be distributed in modified form, but allows the packaging of patches alongside for modification at build-time. Thus, I think paragraph 4 of the DFSG makes this package packageable. I am trying to convince the author to change the licence, but if I don't succeed... can I package libcwd for Debian? Thanks, -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: The QPL licence
Hi, Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb Walter Landry um 18:09: 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. To be more concrete, this fails the desert island test. If I make modifications, then I have to give the initial developer a copy, even if I am physically unable to do so. This differs from the give source if you give binaries clause of the GPL, because if you can give binaries then it is probably not too difficult to give source. I thought about that, but then I thought: If [..] requests - the desert island guy can't be requested. But then, he might: cloud painting, morse-earth-quakes, message-in-a-bottle... Seems to be a corner case, and I have not yet an opinion on that. nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Collection of approved licences in the wiki
Hi debian-legal, since for some reason we don't have that, I started to collect DFSG-compliant licences on http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences I added the obvious important ones, other will be added later. If possible, with link to the debian-legal list of course. Non-compliant licences might be collected on the same page, under a different header, or maybe on another page. But they should be collected, especially the often-asked-fors. Grüße, nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Collection of approved licences in the wiki
Hi, Well, what 'bout this: People like everybody improves the wiki page, and you just sync the webpage with it every once in a while, choosing stuff that is important. You, of course, are invited to add whatever you have collected so far. nomeata Am Mi, den 21.04.2004 schrieb Frank Lichtenheld um 18:56: On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 06:45:22PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: Hi debian-legal, since for some reason we don't have that, I started to collect DFSG-compliant licences on http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences I added the obvious important ones, other will be added later. If possible, with link to the debian-legal list of course. Non-compliant licences might be collected on the same page, under a different header, or maybe on another page. But they should be collected, especially the often-asked-fors. Andreas Barth and I are working on providing such information on the Debian website, but that was stalled by other tasks of us. Coming soon... ;) Gruesse, -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: about licenses for 3D models
Hi Jiba, Am Di, den 20.04.2004 schrieb Jiba um 14:54: About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur in a free license: You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, and his background. This would render the licence non-free, since you restrict modification (the background can't be changed). I am not sure about the name thing, and leave that to debian-legal. The idea is to create a recurrent character in different games, like Mario of Link. I'd suggest you to keep the licence free, and especially use a proven one, like the MIT or GPL licences. You can then add a note, that does not belong to the licence, stating what you intend. Most people will stick to that - the world is not as bad as it seems :-) nomeata, guest on debian-legal -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Problem with mush's license
Hi, my interpretation is that we avoid a problem: We only distribute the orginal sources (alongside a .diff.gz, but that's ok). Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified sources. Maybe Modification of the source for personal use is permitted. can be a problem, since the binary building developer does not really modify the source for personal use (or does he?). I'd say it might be ok, but to be safe we should just drop it. nomeata Am Mo, den 05.04.2004 schrieb Göran Weinholt um 17:59: Hi, I'd like for you to decipher the following license, since I believe that we are currently violating it: Mush is copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 by Dan Heller. All Rights Reserved. This software is not in the public domain. Redistribution of the unmodified source code is permitted as long as all copyright notices remain intact and all other identifying notices remain in the code and in the binary. This includes message headers on outgoing mail and the startup message. Future releases may extract the release version from the message headers of mush-originated messages to aid in implementing features and providing backwards compatibility with previous versions. Modification of the source for personal use is permitted. Modifications sent to the authors are humbly accepted and it is their prerogative to make the mods official. Only the official sources may be redistributed and no sale of the code or any part thereof is permitted without written consent from the authors. Further, no part of the code may be used in any other product, free or otherwise, without consent from the authors. Distribution of sources containing adaptations of the SunView interface to XView or to any X11-based interface is expressly prohibited. MUSH IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY. AUTHORS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Mush is currently in non-free and the source code is modified quite extensively (the .diff.gz is 131K). Are we allowed to distribute the modified sources in this manner, and binaries built from them? Regards, -- Joachim nomeata Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: popular swirl...
Hi, Am Di, den 30.12.2003 schrieb Ben Reser um 23:35: On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:28:10PM +0100, Jörgen Hägg wrote: Somehow the swirl on this page seems familiar... :-) http://www.elektrostore.com/ Hell that's not just familiar that's a blatent rip. Now what can we do about it? Is there a way to make them stop using it (I really think there must be one), and is there a way to get something out of it, maybe a little bit more money in debian's account at SPI :-) nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source
Hi, Am Do, den 27.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 09:55: Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] The GPL is all about what *you* have to do if *you* distribute. It does not in any way enable you to demand things from *others* who distribute, unless you happen to hold a copyright on the thing they distribute. Now I'm starting to get it. Guess you just made me feel bad about posting a lot of messages based upon a wrong assumption. Sorry everybody :-) But this new view leads me to other interesting effects: (assuming we are talking about a close source driver, coming in binary form, but under the GPL, distributed by the copyright holder) * The driver is under the GPL, and since I want to use it (not distribute it), I do not violate the GPL. * Therefore when linking with the kernel, the module should have full access to all functions and not taint the kernel. * This way, proprietary drivers can use the full kernel functionality, when downloaded directly from the copyright holder. Sure, the GPL does prohibit linking with GPL-incompatible code. But the driver is _under_ the GPL - there is just nobody that I can demand the source code from. I guess this is not right, but I wonder at what point I missed something. nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source
Hi, Am So, den 23.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 04:44: On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:51, Joachim Breitner wrote: Compare to this: You give a text to a newspaper with this licence: * you may read it * you may print it Then there is no way I can stop them from printing, after we both accepted these conditions. What law, exactly, would you accuse them of violating? I can't name one, but I think if the way they hand me the product and the GPL, the GPL is binding. A better example: Company B produces some kind of Sweets. Because the packaging is not very large, they put a note on it for a descriptions of the ingredients, mail us this way and we will send them to you. Then they sell or give away (doesn't matter) some sweets. Can't I then rely that the note on the packaging is correct? Now compare Atmel: They give me the binary with a note (called GPL), that I can get the source code from then, the next 2 years at the expense of the copying (or something like that). If they don't do that, they are misleading the customer. What if I chose their product because their firmware was GPL, and the competitor's product wasn't? Then the competitor could sue them for what is called unlauterer Wettbewerb in Germany (unfair competition according to translate). nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source
Hi, seems like we are getting closer here: It is true, that the case I constructed has nothing to do with copyright law. My bad. You agree that if the GPL would part of some contract (in the wider interpretation, e.g. when buying something) or came with something I bought from them, it would be binding. The remaining question is: Is it also binding if they sell it to me for zero money, that is, give it to me for free? I think so. The cost has nothing to do with whether promises have to be kept or not. And does it matter whether they advertised the GPL? I also think this does not change any facts. As said before (not checked by me), the GPL is noted in the firmware file - could be enough of an advertisement for someone really looking for Free firmware. But I guess these details are not very important, especially since the case was hypothetical. So if nobody else wants to join the discussion I think I'm satisfied :-) Thanks for the interesting talk nomeata Am Di, den 25.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 18:48: On Nov 25, 2003, at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote: Company B produces some kind of Sweets. Because the packaging is not very large, they put a note on it for a descriptions of the ingredients, mail us this way and we will send them to you. Then they sell or give away (doesn't matter) some sweets. Can't I then rely that the note on the packaging is correct? Yes. For one thing, they sold you it. When they did that, they created a contract, and part of the terms were that you could request the nutrition information. Even lacking that, you could demand it because, by law, they must provide the nutritional information. What if I chose their product because their firmware was GPL, and the competitor's product wasn't? If you can argue the GPL firmware --- and thus the expectation of source --- is part of the purchase contract, you may be able to sue for breach of contract. I think it'd be a stretch, unless it had been advertised on the box or other prominent place. Sure, if they sell the product based (at least in part) on having GPL drivers, yet refuse to provide any source, I think you'd have a case against them for false advertising. But certainly not copyright infringement. And I don't think Atmel has advertised GPL drivers. -- Joachim nomeata Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source
Hi, Am Do, den 20.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 01:50: Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, doesn't Atmel promise by distributing the .hex files under the GPL to either Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code or Accompany it with a written offer, No. They are the copyright holder, so they can always do whatever they want. Slapping GPL on a work is a grant *from* the copyright holder *to* everyone else which allows everyone else to distribute and modify under certain conditions. Everyone else needs to follow those conditions, because otherwise we won't have any permission to distribute. But the copyright holder has permission to distribute *by default* and does not need a license from himself to do so to do so. True, but this time it is the otherway around. You are talking about the usual case where the copyright owner releases a work under the GPL but still has all rights to do with it what it wants, like selling the binarys. But when they give me the file, and telling me: here, this is for you, and your rights are according to this text (the GPL), then they bound themselves to the conditions they proposed (the GPL). And the GPL grants me the right to get the source code. Compare to this: You give a text to a newspaper with this licence: * you may read it * you may print it Then there is no way I can stop them from printing, after we both accepted these conditions. Atmel agreed to the condition of the GPL when they distributed it, and I agreed on them when I downloaded it. A contract. That grants me the right to get the source code. Again, this is meant hypothetical, but I think this is an interesting case. So I guess we should just get a lawyer to make Atmel hand out the source code :-) Won't work. In most jurisdictions, the only one who can file suits alleging non-compliance with copyright licenses is the copyright holder himself, or his legal delegate. Well, I would sue them for breaking our contract. nomeata -- Joachim nomeata Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Debian and copyrights
Hi, Am Mon, 2003-06-30 um 12.30 schrieb Baptiste SIMON: If you are author of a part of the code, you can oppose forever to its publication as proprietary. right... that's the last solution... but we would prefer having only one copyright, to have a harmonized source code. I know that it is possible giving the (c) to the FSF... I remember reading somewhere that you can give the copyright to just about anyone, and Dhingis Kahn (The mogolian leader, don't know how he is spelled in English). And if you really want to prevent any licence change, then just assign it so someone that is no longer alife (this way you can state your world view, if you choose Ghandi, Marx, Charlemagne, Einstein, Neumann or others). They surely won't change your licence... (well, one would have to check for possible Heirs) And what if you assign copyright to your cat? No guarantee that that would work legally, though. Joachim Breitner -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works [humor]
Hi Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 23.30 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis: On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote: Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final product is a precondition for this. [...] Humans (non-common: the order of the 4 bases on the DNA string) :-) Hmmm... sounds like you're required to distribute yourself with a work to a make it free software. Oooh, can I clone a Linus from the kernel sources? Or are they not free? ;-) well, these were separate examples, and Linux is not a component needed to build the kernel. But if of course the all-around-apache-group has a subproject perfecthacker.apache.org, that provides the DNA of the perfect Free Software Hacker, this project would be free if it distributes the DNA sequence. I just wanted to show the universalism of my definition. Joachim -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
Hi, Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 05.41 schrieb Andrew Suffield: Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too difficult to be realistic. That is why specifically the preferred form has to be available. But a clearer definition would be great, of course. Suppose the author is one of those nutcases that *likes* writing assembly code. Under a requirement such as you describe, all the code he wrote would be non-free, since nobody else wants to work in that form. If you try and clarify enough to make this case free, you find yourself with a null statement. Now, let's take it one step further. I postulate that there are numerous packages in the archive which are so poorly written, that modifying them for a range of useful purposes (including fixing some bugs), is too difficult to be realistic; assume this is true for a moment. Are they therefore to be considered non-free? What about this one (attention, not legal english, but I hope it is at least correct english): Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final product is a precondition for this. This would require to publish the code, the Makefiles, any unpublic compiler patches, maybe some UML files that are needed, while elemtents like make, gcc and similar do not have to be distributed by the author. What is common and what not is of course not defined, but as Branden already said, it will probably not be able to nail it down completely. This definition works also with Documents (non-common: The LaTeX file, common: the letter document LaTex style), Hardware (non-common: the blue prints; common the lithography machine and the silicon), Humans (non-common: the order of the 4 bases on the DNA string) :-) Joachim Breitner -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
Hi, Am Don, 2003-06-12 um 23.21 schrieb Branden Robinson: 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data, including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's own changes to Works written by others. Isn't that effectively this lonely island test? Since if it would be required to disclose any information, the lonely islander would not be able to use it legally. And if I got it right, then the lonely island test has been applied to all Debian software (or at least to those in doubt), so one can actually hope that every piece of Debian software and data already confirms to your 5th Requirement for Freedom. Besides that, I fully support that proposal, since I value privacy very high Joachim Breitner Debian Developer to be :-) -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
