Re: licensed under GPL-2 but need to accept license dialog
On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 01:29:31PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > OBS (https://obsproject.com/) is licensed under GPL-2. > However, it needs to accept license dialog to use it when you start program. > Is it dfsg-free one? I think it would be like click-wrap software. If its license is pristine GPL then you as a maintainer have the right to remove the click-wrap functionality. Usability-wise this would be an improvement, I think. Hence the question about the original dfsg-status does not seem to matter much. IANAL, TINLA. Best regards, Mark Weyer
Re: Simple doubt about section to use
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:10:53AM -0300, Eriberto Mota wrote: Hi, I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). [...] My doubt is if is a main or contrib program. I think in main, because lutris can survive running DFSG games only. However, we have the possibility to install proprietary and commercial games too. So, what is the better section for lutris? I agree. And I strongly disagree with Ian's suggestion to demote it to contrib. As I understand it, lutris is usable with software in main via the ScummVM runner and the two ScummVM games in main. And lutris only installs stuff if the user explicitly asks it to. So the possibility to work with non-DSFG content is not a problem. Unless Debian also decides to move to contrib: - Any compiler which does not check for DSFG-freeness of the code it compiles. - Any emulator which does not likewise check the thing emulated. - Any web browser which does not decline to show non-DSFG-free content. Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Debian project. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140916202934.GA6550@noname
Re: filebench: bison generated parser + CDDL
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:45:06PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 7. Mai 2012 schrieb Mark Weyer: Just a quick note: If you are right about the incompatibility of CDDL-1 and GPLv3 (others on this list will know if you are), then the combined work is non-free: Its license terms discriminate against a field of endeavour, namely developing a parser generator. I don´t understand this. I understand the exception | As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains | part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work | under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a | parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof | as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute | the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this | special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting | Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public | License without this special exception. so that it allows distributing the software under any other license as long as the generated parser isn´t a parser generator in itself. I don´t think that the parser in here is a parser generator. As far as I understand parser_gram.c and parser_gram.h just parses loadable workload descriptions. It is less clear than I thought. Let A be a work with a parser generated by bison and assume that A is not a parser generator. It appears that the exception allows the authors of A to place A under any license they want to, effectively overriding the GPL-and-exception. Suppose they choose something like the MIT license. Then they, or someone else, retrieves the parser skeleton (now under the MIT license) from A and uses it as a parser skeleton for a commercial parser generator B. The exception is clearly not intended to allow that. Reading its letter, I do not see that it actually achieves that intent. How I read the exception on May 7, I thought that it would not be deleted by relicensing, but that its requirement would persist in all modified version of A. Which is the only way (I can see) that the exception achieves its intent. The true question is, of course, whether a court would judge in favour of the exception's letter or its intent. If it judges in favour of its intent: Taking the CDDL'ed filebench for A and some modified version B of A, by copyleft (of both the GPL-and-exception and the CDDL) we have the same license situation in B as in A. Now if B is as above, the exception is not applicable and thus (assuming that GPL and CDDL are incompatible) B is not distributable. Thus the combined licenses forbid distribution of (some) modified versions and the package is non-free. If the court judges in favour of the exception's letter, then your upstream can put parser_gram.c and parser_gram.h under the CDDL and everything is fine (You can't do that yourself, because A: the exception grants that right only to the creator of the larger work and B: if upstream does not exercise the right of the exception, then they do not have the right to distribute filebench under anything other than the GPL.) I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, et cetera. Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120602202941.GA1911@debian
Re: filebench: bison generated parser + CDDL
As far as I understand CDDL-1 and GPL are not compatible, but when I read this special exception correctly, in the case that no new parser generator is done any terms, any license can be used for the resulting work. Just a quick note: If you are right about the incompatibility of CDDL-1 and GPLv3 (others on this list will know if you are), then the combined work is non-free: Its license terms discriminate against a field of endeavour, namely developing a parser generator. I am not a lawyer. Hope this helps, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120507120813.GA1864@debian
Re: No source code for wesnoth-musicg
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:57:47AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore gpast...@debian.org [120423 02:29]: I obviously do not disagree that, if the authors explicity refused to release source, their work is blatantly non-free. One should still be cautious what the source in release source meant. For most of my C programs I explicitly refuse to release any scribbling papers I may have developed some concepts on, will not allow my brain-content to be copied (even if it was possible) to get the idea behind the code back nor do I usually publish my editor config with the keybinding although they are definitely part of my prefered way to edit any C code. And still I claim I release all the source (even in GPL sense). In some cases the question what the source is can be a hard one. That there is something people refuse to release and some other people claim to be the source is only a problem once the question what source is is answered in a way that that is the source (or would be the source if it existed in case you allow conditional definitions). If I understand the already cited Wesnoth forum threads correctly, the OGG files are synthetically generated. The artists use a collection of samples (sound bank) and a program which arranges these samples according to a precise variant of a musical score. The kinds of modifications I see that one might want to make to the music: - Replace an instrument by something more suitable for a specific epoch. - Bugfix a single note in the score. - Remix the entire track. All of these are possible with what the artist has. None is possible with the OGG file they provide. So I think we have a clear case of refusal to release source code. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120423122541.GB1840@debian
Re: No source code for wesnoth-music
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:08:27AM +0400, Evgeny Kapun wrote: Hi, I've found that music tracks for The Battle for Wesnoth (package wesnoth-music in Debian) are only provided as compressed Ogg Vorbis files, without any information used to generate them. I have two questions: * Does wesnoth-music comply with DFSG? I've heard that at certain point DFSG only applied to programs, but later firmware, documentation and other materials were also included. Does DFSG (and, specifically, its requirement of having source code included) apply to music? The DFSG applies to all software. After previous misunderstandings, a Debian General Resolution has clarified that fact. Some people prefer to say that the DFSG applies to all software only *since* the GR. There is a good reason that source is required for all software, including music: So that the music is open for improvement and for adaption to different requirements (e.g. using musical instruments matching the theme of a campaign (tribal/medieval/SF)). * Does distributing wesnoth-music without source code comply with its license (GPL 2+)? No. The copyright holders can distribute their own work in any way they like, but anybody else breaches the GPL 2 or 3 by not offering source code. There was some discussion about this problem on wesnoth forums [1][2]. It mentions that at least some of music files in question were generated using proprietary software, and that even the authors can't regenerate some of them anymore. Apparently there is a consensus that if the original source was lost, then whatever still is there counts as source. So in that your the compressed ogg files are the source form (because they are prefered among all existing forms). (I always fear that mentioning that consensus might lead people reluctant to reveal their true sources to accidentally delete them.) Hope this helps. I am not a lawyer. I am not a Debian anything. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120415203834.GB1859@debian
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:49:45AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: The most important argument is [...] the fact that that there is no terms of service for http://freetranslation.mobi stating otherwise, make me assume this service is following the law and license of the texts it is given. If I ask a random person on the street to translate a GPLed text fragment, and the person give me a translated text fragment back, will the resulting text fragment still be GPLed? Assuming the text fragment was copyrightable in the first place, I believe it will be, as otherwise the translator would be said to violate the GPL and I fail to see what action involved could possibly violate the GPL. I do not think your argument is sound. Assume I write a text, publish it under a license which basically says that everyone translating it ows me EUR 1000, and then ask a random person on the street to translate it (even without mentioning how it is licensed). Would you say that I am entitled to any money? My guess is that in all sane jurisdictions I am not. In case of the GPL, I think it is you who does not comply: Redistribution (as in: submitting to a tranlation service) requires you to accompany the (in this case modified) work with copyright information and a license grant. If freetranslation.mobi provides no means for you to inform them about copyright and license, you have no permission to use that service on GPLed material (unless copyrighted by yourself, or dual licensed, or ...). I am not a lawyer. This is not law advice. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120326201539.GA1848@debian
Re: Name restriction and forced acknowledgement OK?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: -8- [...] In general, people on this list tend to prefer full license texts plus the boilerplate. 3. You [...] may [...] adapt its code [...] That portion of your distribution that does not consist of intact and unchanged copies of SOFA source code files is a derived work that must comply with the following requirements: [...] c. The name(s) of all routine(s) in your derived work shall not include the prefix iau. Non-free: It effectively forbids using a modified library as a drop-in replacement for the original library. It fails DFSG 3. The restriction is not covered by DFSG 4 ([...] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. [...]), - first, because it refers to the library's interface, not just the name by which it is known to people, and - second, because DFSG 4 only allows forbidding one name, not a name range using a wildcard like iau* is. 4. In any published work or commercial products which includes results achieved by using the SOFA software, you shall acknowledge that the SOFA software was used in obtaining those results. Such clauses pop up from time to time. I seem to recall that they are generally viewed as non-free, but right now I cannot find it in the DFSG either. Just my two cents. I am not a Debian anything (DD,DM,NM,whatever). Hope that helps, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120213103836.GA1853@debian
Re: Name restriction and forced acknowledgement OK?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:23:45PM +0100, Olе Streicher wrote: Mark Weyer m...@weyer-zuhause.de writes: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: c. The name(s) of all routine(s) in your derived work shall not include the prefix iau. As you mentioned macros versus functions in your other mail, I noticed that in C terminology there are no routines at all. So I would tend to read routine as a concept which comprised both C functions and certain C macros. Anyway, a modification which should be allowed is to transform the library from C to a language in whose terminology everything is a routine. Non-free: It effectively forbids using a modified library as a drop-in replacement for the original library. This is true. What they effectively want is that nobody refers f.e. to a function iauEpj2jd() that is not approved by the International Astronomical Union, so that they reach a kind of uniformness here. However, they are effective with that only for the licensees of the library; one could easily build a completely independent library with the same name. It fails DFSG 3. Why? It just requires that they get a different name. However small the restriction is, some modifications are prohibited. If it is really non-free: would a library, where I (as the packager) would change all prefixes from iau to IAU (as an example) be free in the dfsg sense? This change would allow anyone to adopt the source code and to write a drop-in replacement. Again, it would restrict certain modifications (rechanging the names and improving some implementations). Let me emphasize the G in DFSG. They are neither a legal text nor a definition, so we should not argue too closely to their letter. But your capitalization argument above could be used to try to persuade upstream to relicense (because their current license does not achieve what they want anyway). * 5. You shall not cause the SOFA software to be brought into * disrepute, either by misuse, or use for inappropriate tasks, or * by inappropriate modification. I think this one fails DFSG 6 (discrimination against field of endeavour). Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120213212320.GA1847@debian
Re: a Free Platform License?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:05:01PM +0100, Hugo Roy wrote: I don't understand what is the restriction on running the software. The AGPL does not say anything about proxies and firewalls. You can have them, or not; it does not care AFAICS. The reason for there being an AGPL was thus: People started offering web services based on GPL software. RMS would have liked to obtain the source code. The GPL did not force the people to disclose their source code, because it only restricts distribution, not use. And the web services were only used, not distributed. Hence the AGPL restricts use by design. The above is not intended to convey my opinion on the AGPL, just to prove that it does in fact restrict use. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2030110035.GA1887@debian
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:47:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the if the source does not exist any more, what is left is source rule, the compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and thus) prefered form for making further changes. Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] It is not common, but it does not require insanity. Only that the modifier does not intend to do any maintenance. I agree that, in the case of a program as in my example, Debian would not be interested in redistribution anyway. I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Because the source no longer exists, the upstream is not in a privileged position for making future modifications. Thanks for clarifying. Copyleft is fundamentally about putting the users of a program on the same footing with the same freedoms as the creator of a program. Copyleft is more. Let A be the original author, B be the modifier and C a user of the modified work. In my understanding of copyleft, C should have the same freedoms (including access to real sources) with respect to the modified work by B as B had with respect to the original work by A. Not only the same ones that B now has with respect to his own work. I guess I'll just mark this as yet another reason not to use the GPL. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110320205128.GA3200@debian
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:25:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: I always thought that such distribution would be in breach of the GPL, or more generally of copyleft. After all, it is impossible to distinguish, from the outside, between lost and secret sources. [...] And if the I-want-my-sources-secret person does not care about later modifications, he might even really delete the sources. In such a case, the author of the modifications isn't in a privileged position. I am sorry but I don't quite understand this comment. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the if the source does not exist any more, what is left is source rule, the compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and thus) prefered form for making further changes. I feel that this is against the spirit of copyleft, so I am surprised that it is claimed not to be against the letter of the GPL. I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318214815.GA3066@debian
Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:39:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Sure, it should be - what happens if [the source] no longer exists? That seems quite possible for a years-old journal paper. This seems to be a FAQ... Well, if some form of that work no longer exists, it cannot be the preferred form for making modifications to the work itself. One thing is when the author/maintainer uses a form of the work to make modifications (because he/she prefers that form), but does not make this form available to others. In this case, the actual source is being kept secret. One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the existing ones. Is this your personal opinion or did you perceive it to be commonly accepted? I am asking because I tend to disagree. The scenario I have in mind is that someone takes a, say, GPLed work, modifies it, and distributes the modified work without (what would otherwise be called) sources, claiming that he lost the sources. I always thought that such distribution would be in breach of the GPL, or more generally of copyleft. After all, it is impossible to distinguish, from the outside, between lost and secret sources. And if the I-want-my-sources-secret person does not care about later modifications, he might even really delete the sources. It should not be that easy to weasel out of copyleft. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110316194845.GA5895@debian
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
In addition to the points already covered by Bernhard and Francesco:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
source code
n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be
translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into
the object code for a particular computer before
execution
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) [foldoc]:
source code
language, programming (Or source, or rarely source
language) The form in which a computer program is written by
the programmer. Source code is written in some formal
programming language which can be compiled automatically into
{object code} or {machine code} or executed by an
{interpreter}.
(1995-01-05)
Both definitions would make the source code requirement void or trivial
to fulfill. Any file can be compiled from its hex dump, which is ASCII.
And for all kinds of file formats you will find a geek who claims that
she actually already has created a file of that format by typing its hex
dump [0]. Anyway, the above seem to be definitions of source code in
general, not source code of a specific file.
Best regards,
Mark Weyer
[0] I, for example, regularly use text editors for creating xpm pictures.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110314211210.GA3099@debian
Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
* xfonts-* (bitmap renderings of non-free vector fonts) Are you saying that xfonts-* are derived from non-free fonts? How can they be DFSG-free, then? In the US and some other places, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted. You can make a free bitmap font by rendering a non-free font at a particular size. Interesting: could you point me at the specific article that states this rule in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ ? Anyway, even assuming that those bitmap fonts are DFSG-free in the US and some other places, what about other jurisdictions? It has been often said that the Debian Project cannot (and should not) rely on the parts of copyright law which vary wildly across jurisdictions (e.g.: fair use/fair dealing and other national counterparts) in order to declare something DFSG-free. Why is a different standard being applied here? Am I missing something? I would think that even if in all jurisdictions the font is non-copyrightable, that still would not imply DFSG-freeness, only that it is fit for non-free. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
This looks very similar to distributing a picture which is a 2D rendering of a 3D model without distributing the original model. This is already accepted in the archive, and the reason is that a 2D picture is its own source, and can serve as a base for modified versions this way. I disagree with this decision by the FTP masters. I personally think that, in most cases, the 2D rendering is not the actual source, since many modifications would be best made by changing the 3D model and re-rendering the 2D image. I agree with you. In particular, in many cases a single 3D model is used to create many 2D images. If you don't have the model, you need to do the modification many times. And then there is the case of increasing the resolution... Disclaimers, of course: IANADD, TINASOTODP (and IANAL, TINLA). Same here. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
I mentioned Voxforge in my previous email. Their goal is to use their free spech data to train models with HTK and use the models with Julius. You can get the source code of HTK after registration on their website but the license has severe restrictions so HTK is not free software. Julius is a free software speech recognition engine that can use models trained with HTK. Note that HTK is pretty much THE speech recognition framework in the speech recognition community. If you consider that the ultimate source of a model is not only the data but also the software used to train it, then Voxforge models built with HTK can't be free, even though the data were free. Is it forbidden for someone to release an image made with Photoshop as free? As I understand it, this depends on what you mean by free. It is quite possible to distribute these models under a free license, even under one which requires distribution of source. The source code would then be the Voxforge data plus the parameters given to HTK. It would not include the source code of HTK, as HTK acts in this process like a compiler. However, a corresponding Debian package would be in contrib at best (and that only, if HTK can be shipped in non-free), because the package would have a build-dependency on HTK. I guess, in the long run your community needs a free replacement of HTK. Again, this is only how I understand things. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
I agree with you. In particular, in many cases a single 3D model is used to create many 2D images. If you don't have the model, you need to do the modification many times. And then there is the case of increasing the resolution... I don't know if it would be technically possible to go to that extremes. Having the source code of all the music and video intros for all the games, of all the sounds, could be probably 100 times bigger than the current archives. Well, you get the idea. I don't think it's a single package what we're talking about. I remember there was a thread some time ago on what would happen if we took the having a whole free source and toolchain when applied to music, and how it would be absolutely impossible to achieve, at least right now. Any idea on what to do in those situations? That's a mixture of questions. I'll add my 2e-2 Euro to each separately. Archive size: The case that I had in mind is that the data is purely synthetic. In those cases the source form is negligibly small when compared to the binary form. Especially in the cases you mention: Game intros rendered from some 3D scene. Game music created from some music score. Sounds which are programmed. I assume that you have non-synthetic data in mind: Music which is actually recorded, videos which are shot with real actors, sounds recorded from the real world. And that what is shipped is a severely compressed form of the original. In that case I guess one can argue that the source requirement is void: I always understand source to be preferred form for modifications among the digital forms of the software. The kind of modifications I see for e.g. music (replace the violin player by someone who actually can play the instrument; correct a discord which is due to a typo in the score) is impossible to achieve without rerecording, so a big digital version of the music is just as useless as a small one. Building time: Coming back to purely synthetic data. building time can be a real pain. Waiting 24 hours (on fast machines) for a build is fine for me as upstream, but not something I would want to cause to your buildd when my software is just one out of thousands of packages. There, I do see a practical problem. With my upstream hat on, I will continue to ship my data under licenses that do require source, but I will not care whether you redo the building or whether you just copy the precompiled data which I give you. Provided of course, that you also ship the source. Extremes: I do not agree with this classification of my view. I value a free game for the fact, that I can fool around with the source to make it better. Adding features, levels, characters. If this means that I have to add long ears to some sprite (which is obviously generated from some 3D model), then I want to have access to that model and to the toolchain used to turn the model into the sprite. Because that is much more simple and robust, and creates a much more consistent set of sprite animation parts, than doing it with gimp on each part of each animation sequence individually. Free data is important for the very same reason that free programs are! What to do: As always it is a tradeoff between quantity and quality, in this case of packages. Maintaining a high freeness standard has an impact on the resources needed, so it limits the number of costly packages that you can support for any given amount of available resources. I value Debian because (and as long as) it puts the emphasis on freeness. PS:I'm CC'ing to the Debian Games Team mailing list. Done as well, but I am not subscribed to that list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
I know I should not reply to polemic posts because it is just one step short of troll-feeding, but anyway: I suggest you start your own distribution, in which you won’t ship: * xfonts-* (bitmap renderings of non-free vector fonts) I agree that these do not belong in a free distribution. There should be plenty of free alternatives, ness pah? * all icons shipped without SVG source * all pictures shipped without XCF/PSD source (oh yeah, that makes a lot) I would handle these on a case-by-case basis. For a 64x64 icon which has no connection to other icons (apart from what can easily be done by copy and paste), I would say the icon itself is just as good as its source. For SVG: Yes, the ability to scale the icon to a new resolution is very important. I assume that your next move will be something like But then, we cannot ship GNOME or KDE!. I have seen such arguments before (don't know if it was from you, though). This is just blackmail. In the same way you could argue for the inclusion of insert shiny propietary software that only runs on windows. And, personally, I do not care whether GNOME or KDE are in Debian. * actually, all pictures that are initially photographs of an object (the preferred form of modification is the original object; if you want to see it at another angle, you need to take another photograph) * all sound files shipped without the full genetic code of the speaker You are being ridiculous on purpose. Source, as I understand it, is always something digital. You could call it something like gNewSense, and you could discuss during hours with RMS how much better it is this way. Just because GNU and RMS have similar views, that does not immediately make the view invalid. This has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 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). Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: licensing for libpam-pwfile (ITP)
* Let me know you're using it I think this makes it non-free. It fails the desert island and the dissident test. It also fails DFSG 3, as soon as the upstream author has died. SDAFP (same disclaimers as Francesco Poli) Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 09:26:20AM +, Дмитрий Ледков wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft licenses and still have a copyleft license... I think these two requirements are _very_ hard to satisfy at the same time; it could be that they are actually incompatible with each other. Maybe something like copyleft-ed BSD license. Eg. standard two clauses, and an additional clause about enforcing source redistribution of your software even if it is part of a larger project (open-sourced or not). I would prefer not to add to license proliferation. In case I have to, I currently favor something based on OSL. The reason being, that I am not skilled enough to formulate additional clauses, whereas removing some is not so hard. Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? My understanding of Francesco's disclaimers: IANAL: I am not a lawyer TINLA: This is not law advice IANADD: I am not a Debian Developer TINASOTODP: This is not a (something) of the official Debian project I might be wrong, though. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Which license am I looking for?
I have a small software project which I intend to release soon. I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing. What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. I apologize for this question being off-topic until someone packages my software for Debian. If there is a better place to get an answer, please tell me. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Sorry if this breaks threading. Subscription was not as quick as I thought. On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though. - no requirement to advertize was targetted at clauses like 5d of GLPv3: | d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display | Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive | interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your | work need not make them do so. Anyway, thanks for your replies, David and Dmitri. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Thanks for your reply. On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: [...] On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. [...] Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license. Well, according to Wikipedia, copyleft just says that redistribution is allowed under the same terms, nothing about source. So I mentioned source requirement separately, just to make sure. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft license! E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL itself. The only exception is the case of mere aggregation: see the license text for more details. Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I think what you refer to, is what GNU calls strong copyleft. What I want is more close to weak copyleft. I want, that in the event of my software becoming part of some larger software, that all recipients have access to my software in its best form, that is in source. Hence copyleft with source. While I would also prefer that recipients have access to the sources of the other parts of the larger software, I think it unwise to require that the other parts are put under the same license. The reason being, that if some other part of the larger software does the same, albeit with a different license, the larger software becomes undistributable, which is the worst possible outcome. I do not see that this is inconsistent. Or maybe I just understand mere aggregation much broader than you. Or than the GPL does. In particular, if my software becomes a library, I do not want a mere include to imply that the whole program is derived work. Back to your question: I personally think you should revise your desiderata, since you seem to search for a broken copyleft, which is, well... , not what I would really recommend! ;-) I have given arguments for my desiderata above, and I would be happy to provide more. But this leads away from my initial question. My personal suggestions are: * first, decide if you really want a copyleft * in case you really want a copyleft, I _strongly_ recommend a GPLv2-compatible license: for instance - the GNU GPL v2 itself (only v2, or, if you prefer, with the or later phrasing) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl2.txt Among other shortcomings, GPL contaminates other software. - or the GNU LGPL v2.1 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt LGPL 2.1 distinguishes all sorts of software right in the definitions: | A library means a collection of software functions and/or data | prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs | (which use some of those functions and data) to form executables. Similar LGPL 3.0: | The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from | a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object | code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated | material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure | layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates | (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: I do not want to distinguish between different kinds of software. The reason is, that while at this time my software is best described as program, I acknowledge, that through a sufficient number of mutations (in the process of deriving works) it might as well become a picture, a library, documentation, or whatnot. (More likely, it will first become something which does not fall into any category.) I do not want the semantics of the license to depend on such. In particular, I want to understand, for myself, what the semantics are in any such case. * in case you conclude you do not want a copyleft, I recommend a simple non-copyleft license: for instance - the Expat/MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt - or the 2-clause BSD license http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license (without clause 3.) - or the zlib license http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html I do want copyleft. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
