Re: Consultation on the license BlueJ
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:43:35 +0200 Innocent De Marchi wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm thinking package BlueJ for Debian > (http://www.bluej.org/index.html). The program is distributed in > GPL-2 license with the Classpath Exception: I think this is correct. > But are also distributed to third parties libraries under other > licenses: http://www.bluej.org/about/THIRDPARTYLICENSE.txt > I do not know these licenses meet the specifications of Debian. > I very much appreciate if someone clarifies this. > > Best regards! > > I. De Marchi I'm only going to throw in a few quick comments, i'm sure a regular can provide better feedback later. First off, the debian wiki [1] is a good place to look for DFSG compatibility, and the fedora wiki [2] for GPL compatibility. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing * Java Secure Channel appears to be 3 clause bsd http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_3-clause_BSD_License * Netbeans CVS Client Library is cddl. This is *NOT* GPL compatible. If the library is used by BlueJ you might have a problem. Debian wiki licensing page doesn't seem to have anything on cddl. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses * ANTLR 3 License i don't know, not seen it before (a no clause bsd!?) * Junit has Common Public License, which is DFSG free, but *not* GPL compatible. This could be a problem like CDDL http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Common_Public_License_.28CPL.29.2C_Version_1.0 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses * SVNKit has the TMate Open Source License, again it seems free but *not* GPL compatible. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses I've not `wdiff`ed any of thse to be sure, so you should double check, and I'm judging by the Fedora wiki to see if its GPL compat or not. thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Retirement News Weekly Yorkton: Issue Fifteen
On Fri, 13 May 2011 15:29:54 -0700 Andrew Harris wrote: > Hi, > > I pretty much never post to this list, but is there a reason why > debian-legal gets these mails? Its called spam. In the list archives every message has a 'report as spam' button which you can press, just follow the link (this thread is started by [1]) and report it. Lots more detail can be found at [2]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/05/msg8.html [2] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam and http://wiki.debian.org/CategoryListArchiveSpam (FTR, please dont reply to spam in future - it only helps legitimise it for the spamassasin instance.) thanks, kk > -tuna > > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:11 PM, RNW Yorkton > wrote: > > > > ISSUE #15: May 13, 2011 7,593 Readers This Month! -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: NASA Open Source Agreement
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:25:11 -0400 Jeremy Wright wrote: > I've asked the OSI license mailing list about this, and I wanted to > get the Debian take on it. I didn't see this discussion anywhere else > on this list already. Sorry if I missed it. > > The OSI has approved version 1.3 of the NASA Open Source Agreement > (NOSA), but the FSF has a problem with section 3, paragraph G of the > license. The issue that the FSF cites is as follows: > > "The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software > license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your > “original creation”. Free software development depends on combining > code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this." Have you let the OSI know? its possible someone made a mistake, or they may simply disagree with the FSF on this matter. thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:46:04 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:39:05 +1000 Karl Goetz wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400 > > Michael Hanke wrote: > > > > > Dear -legal, > > > > > > I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license > > > that has the following clause: > > > > > > | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including > > > prior | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, > > > each a | "Contribution") and/or downloading, copying, modifying, > > > displaying, | distributing or use of any software and/or data > > > from | (collectively, the "Software") constitutes acceptance > > > of all of the | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do > > > not agree to such | terms and conditions, you have no right to > > > contribute your | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, > > > display, distribute or | use the Software. > > > > Does this mean if i disagree with a part of the contribution > > agreement that I'm not allowed to download it? > > It seems so. Thanks for confirming my suspicion about it. > And I do *not* like it at all! I guess the next question becomes, 'Is it permissible'? I tend to feel it isn't, but it wasnt challenged when itpd[1], and the ftpmasters are clearly ok with it as its in the archive. Any other regulars want to comment on this issue? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500841 thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:20:46 -0400 Michael Hanke wrote: > [I've set reply-to to me, because I'm not subscribed to this list] > > Karl Goetz wrote: > > > > > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright > > > > I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand, but i guess > > we're heading down a tangent by discussing it. > > No, actually not. > > > Could you include the actual licence terms for the package you are > > working on, perhaps with its itp bug number? > > There is not ITP yet, because it depends on the outcome of this > discussion. The license terms in question are identical with slicer's > -- except for the name of the software. Ah, i see. I'll follow up to Francesco's message then. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400 Michael Hanke wrote: > Dear -legal, > > I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license that > has the following clause: > > | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior > | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a > | "Contribution") and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, > | distributing or use of any software and/or data from > | (collectively, the "Software") constitutes acceptance of all of the > | terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such > | terms and conditions, you have no right to contribute your > | Contribution, or to download, copy, modify, display, distribute or > use | the Software. Does this mean if i disagree with a part of the contribution agreement that I'm not allowed to download it? (I'm Looking at slicers License.txt since i don't see a copy of the licence you are working with). > I had some concerns about the fact the users of such package would > automatically agree to all conditions in that license even before they > get to see it on there system. However, apparently this is not a > problem for inclusion of such package into main -- this conclusion is > based on the fact that the slicer package also uses exactly this > style of license: > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright > > I assume that this is OK, because the rest of the license only imposes > DFSG-compliant constraints. > > Is that correct? I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand, but i guess we're heading down a tangent by discussing it. Could you include the actual licence terms for the package you are working on, perhaps with its itp bug number? kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:00:00 +0200 Mark Weyer wrote: > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > I was wondering if you found any licences that fit what you were > > looking for? I didnt see a resolution to the thread [1] the first > > time around. > > No, I have not. I am still open to suggestions lest I have to add to > license proliferation (which is the current plan but I am not very > active on it). > Pity, I've been looking around and couldn't seem to find one. Looks like there's going to be a little more proliferation going on ... kk > Best regards, > > Mark Weyer > > -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Hi Mark, I was wondering if you found any licences that fit what you were looking for? I didnt see a resolution to the thread [1] the first time around. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00072.html kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Major Vendors and FSF Announce Instigation of Cloud Alliance and New Open Source License
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:55:22 -0400 Sons Oftheinternet wrote: > *PRESS RELEASE > ** > http://tinyurl.com/cloudleft > > Major Vendors and FSF Announce Instigation of Cloud Alliance and New > Open Source License > * > CLOUD 9, THE CLOUD®, April 1 2009 (CCT): Today, major cloud vendors, > in conjunction with the Free Software Foundation (FSF), announced the > imminent creation of the Free™ and Open™ Cloud Alliance™ (FOCA), an You can has April fools? > industry-wide trade marketing association supporting Free™ and Open™ > Cloud Computing™ (FOCC). The group also pre-announced the release > of a new license for cloud computing, the "CloudLeft Public License > (CPL)". The event coincides with the close of the Cloud Computing > Expo in New York City. Full details will be available next Monday. > kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU Free Documentation License v1.3
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 17:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Hello. > > If the consensus is that GFDL 1.3 is as DFSG-compliant as it 1.2 was, > then I would like to include it in common-licenses in base-files for lenny > (in addition to 1.2, that is) as a "bonus". > > Reasons: > > * The symlink GFDL is supposed to point to the latest version available. > * Works under GFDL-1.2 (not "1.2 or newer") should not refer to the > symlink but to the versioned license "GFDL-1.2". > * It will make copyright-file compliance easier for packages in backports. > No need to update base-files in backports.org just to add a new license > as it happened in etch. > > So, if you have a strong reason why this should not be done, please speak now. > This is not a strong feeling, simply a comment: I find it strange to add a licence that was created with a very specific goal in mind (relicencing wikipedia) which will expire in 9 months (August next year). kk > Thanks. > > -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:21 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2008/9/17 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In > > fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to > > the "whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are > > packaged". Thus if the game code or any dependencies (ie, the engine) are > > licensed under the GPL, the data must be licensed under a GPL compatible > > license (which the CC licenses are not). > > > > After numerous conversations with copyright lawyers on the specific subject > > of games, the entire game is one copyrighted work. > > This might be really relevant for us, the Games Team, as there seem to > be quite a lot of games that have a different license for the engine > and the game data, and the combination of GPL and CC-by-sa seems to be > getting more and more popular. According to what you're saying, if we > consider the entire game as one copyrighted work, that might make some > games simply not distributable. I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf, someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think) for game data, and said it didnt conflict with the GPL. Unfortunately i dont think that part of the day was recorded :( Heres the miniconf link, incase you want to check. http://miniconf.mel8ourne.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gaming kk > -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 09:19 -0400, Arc Riley wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > I don't know about others, but I am charged for data transfer. > > It has already been made clear that you're not required to distribute > the modified source on the same network connection as the remote > interaction. > Suppose the following scenario: Someone gives you a CD with debian, and you install the weblog tool, which happens to be agpl. Your internet connection is two way satalite, 500mb/month, data both directions costs, and it could be up to 25cents/mb over your quota. Now imagine because the package you got from debian wasnt finished (perhaps a typo leaves a path broken), you have to make a change to the packages source. You just changed it. You now have to make it available (with its dependancies? i'm not sure). Are you suggesting the person now has to upload potentially 10s of MBs (perhaps theres lots of stock themes, you get the idea), and make it available to others. There will be *at least* a one off cost, but thats not what worries me. What worries me is that the people in this situation *dont realise* what they got themselves into (its on my debian cd, so i can use it for personal use however ... right?). > Yes, it's absurd to ensure cooperation! The first point of > the first > principle of cooperation is "voluntary". > http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html > > Nobody is being forced to use the software, just as nobody is forced > to become a member of a cooperative. Participation remains is > voluntary. I'm not worried about people who 'opt in' to agpl software, i'm worried about people who *dont realise* what agpl means to them, and wind up in a tricky legal corner. kk > > -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:28 +, John Halton wrote: > On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is > the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file: > > --- > > The following copyright and permission notice applies to the > OpenVision Kerberos Administration system located in kadmin/create, > kadmin/dbutil, kadmin/passwd, kadmin/server, lib/kadm5, and portions > of lib/rpc: Trim. > > I don't think the DFSG-freeness is affected in either event, but if > OpenVision are trying to claim ownership of modifications then this is > unusual, undesirable and probably ineffective. Thanks for your feedback! karl > > John > > (TINLA) > > -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian / Ubuntu / gNewSense -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Hi Debian-legal. We (gNewSense) just had someone report [3] two clauses in the krb5 (source) package. [1] has its current (Sid) copyright file. I dont see a bug about it, so i'm asking if someone could look at the licence and say if they think the clauses are DFSG free or not? Thanks in advance, karl. [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/k/krb5/krb5_1.6.dfsg.3~beta1-2/copyright [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?ordering=normal;archive=both;version=;dist=unstable;package=krb5;repeatmerged=1 [3] Email to gnewsense-users follows: ... I think the license of krb5 (http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/k/krb5/krb5_1.4.3-5ubuntu0.2/) has two unclear sections regarding freedom: * line 18-21: "Export of this software from the United States of America may require a specific license from the United States Government. It is the responsibility of any person or organization contemplating export to obtain such a license before exporting." This section may not suit freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat this software freedom. pitof ___ gNewSense-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian / Ubuntu / gNewSense -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 12:06 +, John Halton wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 10:22 AM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tom "spot" Callaway, from Red Hat, announced [1] that Fedora won't be > > including any game of the kind of Frets on Fire, Stepmania, pydance, > > digiband, or anything of the kind of DDR or Guitar Hero, due to patent > > concerns [2]. > > > > I haven't been able to find out whether there are any equivalent > patents outside the US, so it may be this is a US-only (or perhaps > Japan also) patent. What is Debian's policy as regards software that > is encumbered by patents in one jurisdiction but not others? I expect many places with Free Trade Agreements with the USA will 'inherit' the patent from the US. Australia and New Zealand fall in this catagory i think. kk > > John > > (TINLA) > > -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian / Ubuntu / gNewSense -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: licence for Truecrypt
MJ Ray wrote: Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Goetz writes: [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-knoppix/2006/06/msg00019.html [2] http://www.truecrypt.org/license.php [...] Overall, this seems like a fairly pointless and dangerous but not clearly unfree license; GPLv2 or v2+ with SSL exception and a trademark note on appropriate use of "TrueCrypt" and "TrueCrypt Foundation" seem like a much clearer choice. I agree with this summary. It's an unclear licence. thanks for the reply. kk Karl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
licence for Truecrypt
Hi all I was looking at truecrypt, and noticed that the licence is not considered 'free' by Klause Knopper[1], but i don't see a view from debian-legal. does anyone know if this licence [2] would be free enough to ship with debian? Or, for that matter, if its come up before on the list and i couldn't find it, please do link me there :) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-knoppix/2006/06/msg00019.html [2] http://www.truecrypt.org/license.php Karl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
