Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/13 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged >> on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred >> onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code >> hosting sites. > > I think this thread already saw more than one explanation of why this > is not necessarily possible. For instance: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/09/msg00016.html Alright, let me see the objections in that message... On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 05:39:59 -0400 Daniel Dickinson wrote: > * if the application runs on a resource-limited server (think about > a small embedded system...), I cannot use the same host So? Put it up in Sourceforge or another server. What's the big deal about using another server? The indefinite article "a" in the AGPL clearly allows this. > * if I don't want to publish the application (but only distribute it > to my users), I cannot use a public hosting service Sure you can, just use an authentication system. There are many public hosting services that allow you to enforce an authentication system. > * if I cannot afford the costs of ensuring it is available as long as > the application runs, I cannot use another host owned or hired by me Againt, those costs can be transferred to other agents for whom the cost is presumably negligible. 2008/9/13 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> The protests I have heard on this point is that perhaps >> transferring these costs to third parties is not effective for various >> reasons (anonymity and whatnot). > > The issue is not anonymity: the issue is that I could want to avoid > making the application public (and only distribute it to my remote > users). Again, see the above-cited message. An authentication system seems to fix this (and I guess your next objection will be some weird hypothetical and unlikely case where an authentication system is technically difficult). > > [...] >> > and additional cost of maintaining those modifications over >> > time. >> >> For instances where the maintenance could be cumbersome, I think the >> alternative methods of providing source, such as all at once when you >> first transfer the software, could be effective. > > Suppose I never first transfered the software: I just run the > application on my server. Your alternative method does not apply. That's true, but you received the AGPLed software somehow in the first place. Perhaps it's not fair of me to assume that if you were able to receive the software, you cannot use the same symmetrical method to distribute your modified source. But again, I have difficulty envisioning a system where you're able to run a server that everyone in the world can use to interface to but you cannot provide code to anyone who uses this globally-available code. > I hope you are not arguing that forcing me to implement http/ftp > support complies with the DFSG... No need for you to implement it, Sourceforge et al have already implemented it for your benefit. > >> I have a hard time >> imagining such a situation, so I don't think I fully understand the >> impact of this protest against the AGPL. The cases of when the user is >> given a device that has a local network interface can be solved by >> giving the user the source on a separate medium when given the device; >> this seems like a negligible cost too. > > Suppose I am not giving any physical device to anyone. > My (modified) application runs on a small resource-limited server, > talks a very simple network protocol (with no http/ftp support) and > has remote users on the other side of an ocean... > I don't think this is a particularly far-fetched example. I do. Provide more details to make it plausible. > And anyway, a work cannot claim to be Free Software, while forbidding > some scenarios just because they are "weird". Yes you can. Suppose aliens invade the Earth, closely monitor all network traffic as well as sneakernet and instantly destroy anyone who attempts to distribute source, but allow distribution of binaries. Oh no! You cannot comply with the GPL anymore without being vapourised! Clearly the GPL is non-free in this scenario. >> > That's before we even get to the question of whether the AGPL allows >> > the corresponding source to be unavailable at a given point in time >> > when an person who interacts with the program at time T and then at >> > time T+X requests the corresponding source. >> >> I am not sure. It might. The "oppo
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/11 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So in case this is an unreasonable burden, the GPL *and* AGPL provide >> other ways to convey source, like CDs. > > How would that satisfy section 13? A CD isn't a network server. A network server, such as the same one providing the interface, can say, "check the CD that we gave you", and this sounds to me like providing access through customary means and through a network server to the Corresponding Source. All the other terms for distributing source of the AGPL seem valid for similar reasons, the network server could tell you to look at the source you've already received through one of the other means. I have not been interpreting clause 13 as specifying that the only way to get you source is through a bitstream coming from the network server, but if you think this interpretation is incorrect, then I will agree that the AGPL does place undue burdens. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/10 Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 2008/9/10 Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of
>> >> providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in
>> >> the first place.
> […]
>
>> I have been interpreting the AGPL […] that these additional costs
>> can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably
>> negligible
>
> That's a different argument to your earlier message.
>
> You can't argue both "zero additional costs" *and* "non-zero
> additional costs which are negligible for some parties in some
> circumstances". Which is it?
I suppose debian-legal is the proper place to pick language apart.
The two you quote above, one says "no greater", the other says
"negligible". My point still is that in most cases if you can afford
to provide an interface over a network, you can also afford to provide
source over a network, and for the cases when you can't afford source,
there are other ways you can satisfy clause 13, namely, the usual
channels of distribution that the GPL provides, plus a trivial network
server to indicate those other ways.
In LaTeX,
\[
\operatorname{cost} \leq \epsilon \forall \operatorname{cost} \in A
\]
where $A$ is the set of all costs associated with transferring AGPLed source.
I have never argued for zero cost. Smaller than epsilon doesn't mean
zero (unless it's nonnegative and smaller than every epsilon and we're
working with a standard model of the real numbers, but I digress).
And I'm trying to be funny, btw, not necessarily a smart (or dumb)
ass. :-) Please forgive me if I failed. Being funny, that is.
- Jordi G. H.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/10 Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of >> providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the >> first place. > > This is plainly false: There is, at minimum, additional cost of > storage, additional cost of bandwidth, I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code hosting sites. The protests I have heard on this point is that perhaps transferring these costs to third parties is not effective for various reasons (anonymity and whatnot). > additional cost of modifying the interface to support such an > offering, I suppose it may be a bit naïve of me to think that this cost could also be negligible. Maybe "Click here for source!" is hard to code for certain circumstances. > and additional cost of maintaining those modifications over > time. For instances where the maintenance could be cumbersome, I think the alternative methods of providing source, such as all at once when you first transfer the software, could be effective. How plausible is it that you have a server somewhere providing the interface but unable to provide the source? I have a hard time imagining such a situation, so I don't think I fully understand the impact of this protest against the AGPL. The cases of when the user is given a device that has a local network interface can be solved by giving the user the source on a separate medium when given the device; this seems like a negligible cost too. > That's before we even get to the question of whether the AGPL allows > the corresponding source to be unavailable at a given point in time > when an person who interacts with the program at time T and then at > time T+X requests the corresponding source. I am not sure. It might. The "opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source" might be an opportunity in the future. To sue, you would probably have to convince a judge that you were never given an opportunity at all. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/10 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing >> the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the >> source? > > It's an extra required cost on top of one's use of the software. One's modification and distribution over a network of that software, let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. >> Lawyers will have to decide, but the terms of the AGPL seem vague >> enough to allow a variety of creative solutions for distributing the >> source, including, btw, *all* of the same terms for distributing >> source that the GPL already provides. > > The extra AGPL clause specifies exactly one set of terms for > distributing source: "access to the Corresponding Source from a > network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means > of facilitating copying of software." > > Lawyers will have to decide? Then please call us back once lawyers > have defused this lawyerbomb. What I mean is that "through some standard or customery means" seems vague enough to me be interpreted as I did, that all the network server has to do is tell you where to get the source, not that it directly has to provide the source over this network connection, and it's important to mention that all the same terms of the GPL for distributing source also apply to the AGPL except for the extra I mean, are you giving me "access to the Corresponding Source" if your network server tells me to check the media that came with my bluetooth device that's providing a network interface, and are you giving me the same access if your network server tells me to look at some other 3rd party network to look for the source? If it does, then I think the protests of the AGPL placing undue burdens on the software conveyors are unfounded. If "access to the Corresponding Source" means nothing less than that the network server must directly send me the source over the network, then I shall relent arguing that the AGPL satisfies the DFSG. > There seems no good reason to link the AGPL and the GPL. I'm not sure what you mean. Both licences are identical except for clause 13, and even that clause explicitly says that you can combine GPL and AGPL works. They're clearly meant to be compatible and used side-by-side. > The intentions of the AGPL are different, as explained in its > preamble, based around the absurd idea of ensured cooperation. Huh? It's absurd to ensure cooperation? Isn't this the whole point of copyleft? > I think pointing to other people's servers may work, *as long as* your > deployment checks they are still serving source and goes offline if it > can't find the source. I'm not sure whether that meets DFSG, though. So in case this is an unreasonable burden, the GPL *and* AGPL provide other ways to convey source, like CDs. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/8 Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > * Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080907 19:57]: >> 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. > > It might be good to have the source then, but the way to get it would > definitly > not be in the spirit of Free software. What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the source? Lawyers will have to decide, but the terms of the AGPL seem vague enough to allow a variety of creative solutions for distributing the source, including, btw, *all* of the same terms for distributing source that the GPL already provides. > [1] There is a German proverb "Das Gegenteil von gut ist gut gemeint", >which translates roughly to >"the opposite of doing good is done with good intentions". That sounds like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", a popular English language proverb that has appeared in various other forms in the past. It seems to have a nicer rhythm in German, though. Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses are nearly identical, after all. I think "providing access to the source from a network server" could well be satisfied by having that server tell you, "check this other place, the source is right there" or "check your distribution, we already gave you the source." - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If being usable in an SSH session counts as "supporting" remote > interaction "through a computer network", then basically every program > supports such interaction! You're right, ssh was a bad example, probably not covered by clause 13. > On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:27:14 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > >> Also, instead of providing a link to where the source can be found, >> the embedded device's network interface could say "contact this >> person, this group, meet me at the docks at 4 AM, come alone" and then >> that other contact could provide the source over a network, since all >> the device has to offer is an "opportunity". > > I don't think that (currently) qualifies as "standard or customary > means of facilitating copying of software"... I was joking when I said the docks part, but a link saying "contact us, we'll get you the source" and that link actually takes you to a place where the source can eventually be found, maybe after talking with humans, does seem like a more or less customary method of distribution (not sure about the humans in between bit). - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/9/3 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...] >>> >>> I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and >>> Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name. >>> Which services allow anonymous hosting? >> >> I just found a few. Sharesource.org and Intuxication.org only require >> an email address (Sharesource.org has a field for name, but you can >> leave it blank), and intuxication.org doesn't even require the email >> address to be valid (I just registered right now with [EMAIL PROTECTED]). The >> service freehg.org doesn't require any of these. Alternatively, you >> can always put a pseudonym in the name fields. > > Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test? In this case, yes. If you provide a network interface that the dissident's government can see, then you've already revealed possession of the program itself. You can exclude access to certain undesirables by hiding the network interface behind a password authentication system. This is no different than having to distribute source to fellow dissenters if you give them a modified binary on a CD. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/9/2 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > "Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my >> > expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the >> > DFSG?" >> >> Why is this a question that matters for the AGPL? Are you saying that >> the condition of distributing source over a network could be >> prohibitively expensive? > > This question matters if - as some claim - there is no longer a useful > distinction between network and personal computing. Although I think the spirit of the AGPL is to significantly blur that distinction, it clearly doesn't, as for example it excludes a network interface from its definition of "convey". If on your laptop you modify the software and you lend your laptop to someone, then you haven't conveyed the work unless that other person can copy the software off your laptop, and you could always restrict access to that if you don't want to convey the source. If on the other hand you let the other user interact with your laptop through a network (say, they ssh into it), then clause 13 of the AGPL applies. > I am wondering (I am undecided, remember) whether the condition of > distributing source over a network has an unavoidable cost. I don't > think the size of that cost is important. If there is an unavoidable cost, you can transfer the cost to third parties like code hosting sites. >> Please correct me if I'm strawmanning you, but this is ridiculous. > > I'm not sure whether it's strawmanning me, but I feel it's a bit close > to a personal attack. I've bared my thoughts and all I got was this > lousy ridicule. Sorry, I get excited, but I wasn't trying to ridicule you, just claim that an idea (that happened to be yours) was ridiculous. Hate the idea, love the idealer? ;-) >> I don't understand why embedded systems have anything to do with it. >> You just have to put the code up somewhere on some network server if >> you are distributing your application's interface over a network. The >> server hosting the code doesn't even have to be your own, just put it >> on Sourceforge or one of the zillions code hosting servers out there. > > I think then you have to make the embedded system phone home and check > that the source source is still up before it offers network service. The AGPL provides all of the same terms as the GPL for conveying source before you provide a network interface. What could be done with the embedded device is to very briefly send a message over the network (bluetooth or whatever) that says "check your distribution, we already provided the source." I think the phrase "through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software" allows this, but maybe I'm stretching the meaning of that phrase. Also, instead of providing a link to where the source can be found, the embedded device's network interface could say "contact this person, this group, meet me at the docks at 4 AM, come alone" and then that other contact could provide the source over a network, since all the device has to offer is an "opportunity". Or you could do both, check this site, and if that fails, try this contact. >> I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...] > > I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and > Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name. > Which services allow anonymous hosting? I just found a few. Sharesource.org and Intuxication.org only require an email address (Sharesource.org has a field for name, but you can leave it blank), and intuxication.org doesn't even require the email address to be valid (I just registered right now with [EMAIL PROTECTED]). The service freehg.org doesn't require any of these. Alternatively, you can always put a pseudonym in the name fields. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > >> I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand >> how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing >> source for all other packages. > > We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We > (generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped > distributing the binary. The AGPL requires distribution of source at > any time that the application is used. The GPL does not. At any time Debian provides a webserver with modified AGPLed software for its users. It's not that Debian's users are going to download the AGPLed software which most of them are not going to modify, and Debian is responsible for always keeping a copy of the source available for all the users. If the user modifies the software *and* conveys it over a network, it is that user's responsibility to keep distributing the modified sources, not Debian's. > This is part and parcel of the ASP loophole that the AGPL is trying to > close, and the very reason that the AGPL exists in the first place. > >> Are you saying the burden is going to be in updating those links >> that say where to get the source, making the patchwork for packaging >> AGPL software more tedious? The GPL says three years, right? > > No, the path through the GPL that we use says "equivalent access." (We > distribute binaries under 6d precisely so our mirror operators do not > have to deal with the tedious bookkeeping of satifying 6c.) Okay, I understand. Sorry about this one. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> > The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, >> > which is more difficult. >> >> Why? You just have to put a link somewhere "source here". > > And the link has to go to somewhere where the source actually exists. > Try doing that currently for a package and all of the package's > recursive dependencies which was in testing 3 months ago, but has > since been superseded. I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing source for all other packages. Are you saying the burden is going to be in updating those links that say where to get the source, making the patchwork for packaging AGPL software more tedious? The GPL says three years, right? That means Debian still had to distribute sources for sarge until this past June. Or is it that with the AGPL, it's not just three years, but for however long you keep conveying the software over a network? This is the same for the GPL, as long as you keep conveying GPLed software, those three years get renewed. It doesn't sound like it's Debian's duty to keep conveying the source over a network for longer than those three years unless there's AGPL software running in the Debian webservers. And if you keep a server up with your modified AGPLed software, I insist that it's not an unreasonable burden to also keep the corresponding source available somewehere online. You want to stop conveying the source, then stop conveying the software over the network, tada! Or if you don't want to convey source at all, then don't modify the software that you yoinked from the original copyright holder.. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only >> to those who ask. > > The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do > to the binaries, And doesn't the AGPL too? Both the program and the source over the network? > The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which > is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere "source here". It doesn't have to be available from the same location as the program, same server, same nothing. You just have to "prominently offer an opportunity," and "a network server", emphasis on the indefinite article. It's the equivalent of a splash screen in a GPL program that says where the program's homepage is for downloading the source. GPLed programs already have a requirement to prominently make certain announcements too, such as announcing that it's free software under the GPL. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/2 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my > expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the > DFSG?" Why is this a question that matters for the AGPL? Are you saying that the condition of distributing source over a network could be prohibitively expensive? Pleae correct me if I'm strawmanning you, but this is ridiculous. It's an even bigger burden to have to send people copies of CDs or to download the source from all the GPLed software out there, and I don't think all this distribution of source has brought any project to its knees. Sure, if your site is slashdotted with source requests, that's a problem, but this could happen just as well with the GPL as it it could with the AGPL. You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only to those who ask. I don't understand why embedded systems have anything to do with it. You just have to put the code up somewhere on some network server if you are distributing your application's interface over a network. The server hosting the code doesn't even have to be your own, just put it on Sourceforge or one of the zillions code hosting servers out there. I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; if the dissident can setup a network server to offer a network interface to her users, she can also anonymously upload the source to Sourceforge (or whatever). - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you > modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal > for you. This is not an issue. A license can't force you to do something that contradicts a higher law. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"All rights reserved" notice in LGPLed code
I was looking at the TinyMCE code distributed by Debian, and I noticed that some of the source files say "all rights reserved", while others don't have a copyright notice at all. They include a copy of the LGPL version 2.1 in their distribution, but there is no clear indication of this applies to all the files or only some of them. I get the impression, from the statements made in Moxiecode's website, that they intend to apply the LGPL to all of their code, and that all of the code that they distribute is under their copyright. Is the somewhat unconventional copyright notice in TinyMCE's source a problem at all? I think Moxiecode's intent to release this as free software is clear, although their lawyers seem to have muddled things a little. :-) Curious, - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JOGL in Debian
On 30/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote: > > A lot of other local laws don't define "intellectual property", but > > people use the term anyways as if it were legally defined. It's sad > > news to see that France does and that other laws are also doing it. > > :-( > > Why do you think it's necessary for a law to define a term of art > for lawyers? As long as people know what is meant by the term, what > is the problem? In this case, because I honestly *didn't* know what the term meant. I had no idea that geographical indication was also intellectual property, for instance. I do get the impression that there is widespread confusion about what it means. > Geographical indications: this refers to e.g. labeling sparkling wine > from California as "Champagne" (which is not allowed because Champagne > is a protected geographical indication). It's related to trademarks. I understand what it means, it's just a funny thing to call that "intellectual property", don't you think? Also, regarding trademarks, that's sometimes a very non-intuitive intellectual property. In Mexico, at least, I know that you cannot trademark a common word, although I'm guessing that only pertains to Spanish because Windows (r) is seemingly recognised as a trademark, for instance. > The two design rights are related but hava a different purpose. > IC layout designs are purely functional and technical, while industrial > designs are ornamental. They need separate criteria because of their > different purpose. I see, thanks. > Trade secrets: yes that's a pretty broad definition. If information is > undisclosed and has commercial value because it is secret, the owner > of the information has a cause of action against people who misappropriate > this information from him. Could I misappropriate your lighter's or matchbox's fire[1] for this candle I want to light in mourning of the spread of intellectual property concerns? > (Very funny, repeating that key here). Isn't it a Debian package by now?[2] Oh, I guess it hasn't gotten uploaded yet. It's important to have a sense of humour about these things, because otherwise I'd be crying about it. :-) - Jordi G.H. [1] http://everything2.com/?node_id=697430 [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/05/msg00043.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JOGL in Debian
On 29/12/2007, Sylvestre Ledru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:20:14 -0600, "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Does French law define "intellectual property"? What does it define it to > > be? > > Of course, our law defines what is an "intellectual property" and it is > going futher. I see. A lot of other local laws don't define "intellectual property", but people use the term anyways as if it were legally defined. It's sad news to see that France does and that other laws are also doing it. :-( On 29/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure if any law has a more precise definition. The term IP > is well-enough understood as a term of art for copyrights, patents, > trademarks, semiconductor rights, plant breeders' rights and so on. Or internet protocol or imaginary property. Heh. Anyways, TRIPS seems to define "intellectual property" to be "copyright and related rights", trademarks, "geographical indications" (this one is new for me. If I label my product as originating from my country, then this is intellectual property? What does intellect have to do with being born in a specific geographical location?), industrial designs, patents, "layout designs of integrated circuits" (why include a section just for this, and why not subsume this under industrial designs?), and "protection of undisclosed information". This last one is also broad enough to include almost anything, since any information that "has commercial value because it is secret" is "protected" under this law. I wonder if 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is breaking that law, and I wonder what intellect was required to come up with a seemingly random number. If they want to use that definition, maybe "information property" could be a better expansion of the IP acronym. Uh. I guess I'm getting offtopic for this list. Any suggestions on where to move the discussion to? - Jordi G. H.
Re: JOGL in Debian
On 07/12/2007, Sylvestre Ledru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it has been > designed for the french (and european) law which is quite specific about > intellectual property. Does French law define "intellectual property"? What does it define it to be? - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL and cover texts
On 07/08/07, Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > >But we can't modify the COPYING file in a source tarball, and that's > >ok. Why isn't a cover text like "a GNU manual" also acceptable? > > > > It really is not as much the non-modifiable nature of cover texts, as the > fact that they are mandatory to include. Wow. Thanks. Actually, this does make sense. Excerpts from GFDLed docs without the cover texts are ok and probably covered under Fair Use under US copyright law, but I think that in other jurisdictions they aren't. Come to think of it, it's strange that the GFDL doesn't have clauses explicitly allowing small excerpts... - Jordi G. H.
Re: GFDL and cover texts
On 06/08/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The position statement and the vote all conflate invariant sections > > with cover texts and dedications as if exactly the same arguments > > against invariant sections applied to a cover text like "a gnu > > manual". > > That's because the same arguments do apply. All works in Debian must > meet the DFSG; a work licensed such that any of it is unmodifiable > fails to meet DFSG §3. Yeah, and the GPL fails to meet DFSG §8 because it discriminates against people who can only make business with the software by hiding its source, like any hardcore BSD advocate will tell you. My point here is that it's a matter of interpretation and degree; the position statement and the outcome of the vote speak in absolutes, as much as a single unmodifiable byte, and you're out, which is highly impractical; I can't think of any situation where the words "a GNU manual" could actually hinder anyone's use, modification or distribution of, well, a GNU manual. I disagree that the GFDL violates DFSG §3 because everything that's important about a GFDLed text is modifiable. Like I've said before, even OpenBSD thinks GFDL texts are free enough to distribute; Debian still looks like a wacko here, not to mention that it's embarrassing to explain to Debian outsiders why Debian thinks a GNU free license isn't free at all. Source tarballs under any license have an unmodifiable section in their license terms, and we tolerate that, but the GFDL is seemingly different because it forces GNU philosophy down our throats, right? Or in the case of cover texts, it very evilly reminds us that GNU had something to do with the writing of the manual, how dare they! - Jordi G. H.
Re: GFDL and cover texts
On 07/08/07, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11104 March 1977, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > : Why are three words enough to make thousands upon thousands > > of words nonfree? > > Because it is non-free. > Compare with a source tarball, where one could say "But this is just one > twenty-line file which is non-free, and the other 50 lines are > free. Why is this enough to make the rest non-free?". That just doesn't > work. But we can't modify the COPYING file in a source tarball, and that's ok. Why isn't a cover text like "a GNU manual" also acceptable? - Jordi G. H.
Re: GFDL and cover texts
On 06/08/07, Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-08 at 08:58 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > > Can I get an explanation of why Debian considers a GFDL manual with > > cover texts non-free? > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 The position statement and the vote all conflate invariant sections with cover texts and dedications as if exactly the same arguments against invariant sections applied to a cover text like "a gnu manual". Why are three words enough to make thousands upon thousands of words nonfree? - Jordi G. H.
GFDL and cover texts
Can I get an explanation of why Debian considers a GFDL manual with cover texts non-free? For fuck's sakes... what's the big deal with a couple of unmodifiable sentences? - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why is firebird in Debian?
On 20/07/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ATATIAAWBI, bla, bla, ... WTFOMGBTWBBQ? - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
