Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-04-30 03:49]: I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the pages of the security team), put them online and added a first license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins. I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then I agree. Given that we haven't asked contributors to assign their copyrights to SPI, do we have the right to do this? -- Matt Kraai[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://ftbfs.org/
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:35:45PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 11:45:39AM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote: Would the the descriptions be correct if the following patch was applied? *** packages.wml.~1.52.~Tue Jul 8 17:25:45 2003 --- packages.wmlThu Jul 17 11:34:47 2003 *** *** 27,34 restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be ! stored on a server in the U.S. because they are encumbered by ! patent issues./dd dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt ddPackages in this area have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software. They cannot --- 27,33 restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be ! exported from a server in the U.S./dd dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt ddPackages in this area have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software. They cannot I would be fine with this. Done. -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 06:46:15PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Patented software does not have to be patent-encumbered (for example, we have many programs and libraries in both main and non-US/main that use CAST5 [0], which is patented). Patent-encumbered software would use things like LZW, which is non-free because of the licensing that is required to use it. CAST5's RFC [0] states: The CAST-128 cipher described in this document is available worldwide on a royalty-free basis for commercial and non-commercial uses. I'd further point out that packages relegated to non-US purely because of US patents are not usable in the US, which is something that traditionally non-US/main has been. Also, for example, if LZW had just a year left to expire on it in the US, instead of in Germany, would we relegate it to non-US/main? I hope not. Would the the descriptions be correct if the following patch was applied? *** packages.wml.~1.52.~Tue Jul 8 17:25:45 2003 --- packages.wmlThu Jul 17 11:34:47 2003 *** *** 27,34 restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be ! stored on a server in the U.S. because they are encumbered by ! patent issues./dd dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt ddPackages in this area have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software. They cannot --- 27,33 restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be ! exported from a server in the U.S./dd dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt ddPackages in this area have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software. They cannot -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: The thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html documents the exact rationale for these sections. The following patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page. I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would double-check it. What I saw in that thread was Wichert saying that things in non-US needed to be there because of patents, and Steve Langasek saying that that those things needed to be in non-US/non-free. That's not what I see below. I only found one reply from Steve Langasek at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00032.html I interpret this as saying that cryptographic software that is non-free cannot move to a server in the US because it does not fall under the same BXA exemptions that allow us to export free cryptographic software. I didn't see anything in his message regarding patents. -dtemNon-US/Main/em and emNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt - ddThese packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly - encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by - patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free./dd +dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt + ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be + stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by + patent issues./dd Things in main or non-US/main should not be patent encumbered. non-US/main is designed so that packages can be imported into the US, but not exported. If it would not fit the DFSG for any reason, including being patent-encumbered in the US or other places, then it does not belong in non-US/main. What belongs in non-US/main? Only software left over from the crypto-in-main transition? [snip] One final nitpick: please properly capitalize non-US, non-free, and main. I was being consistent with the titles of the other sections as listed on that page. -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:24:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: The packages page at http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages currently says: = Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free These packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free. = The point about encryption software is out of date since we can get any crypto software exported from the USA these days. The last sentence is needlessly vague. The thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html documents the exact rationale for these sections. The following patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page. I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would double-check it. -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Index: english/distrib/packages.wml === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/distrib/packages.wml,v retrieving revision 1.51 diff -3 -c -p -u -r1.51 packages.wml --- english/distrib/packages.wml6 Feb 2003 18:12:17 - 1.51 +++ english/distrib/packages.wml8 Jul 2003 04:52:18 - @@ -26,10 +26,17 @@ restrictive license or legal issues. The ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd -dtemNon-US/Main/em and emNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt - ddThese packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly - encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by - patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free./dd +dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt + ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be + stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by + patent issues./dd +dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt + ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but + have some onerous license condition restricting use or + redistribution of the software. They cannot be exported from + the USA because they are encryption software packages or they + cannot be stored on a server in the USA because are encumbered + by patent issues./dd /dl/blockquote pNote that same packages might appear in several distributions, but with
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:01:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: Index: english/distrib/packages.wml === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/distrib/packages.wml,v retrieving revision 1.51 diff -3 -c -p -u -r1.51 packages.wml --- english/distrib/packages.wml6 Feb 2003 18:12:17 - 1.51 +++ english/distrib/packages.wml8 Jul 2003 04:52:18 - @@ -26,10 +26,17 @@ restrictive license or legal issues. The ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd -dtemNon-US/Main/em and emNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt - ddThese packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly - encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by - patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free./dd +dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt + ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be + stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by + patent issues./dd +dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt + ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but + have some onerous license condition restricting use or + redistribution of the software. They cannot be exported from + the USA because they are encryption software packages or they + cannot be stored on a server in the USA because are encumbered + by patent issues./dd /dl/blockquote pNote that same packages might appear in several distributions, but with Looks okay. I suggest the following further changes: [snip] s/encryption software packages/ that are not exempted from the export control procedure that is used for packages in Main/ I find this last change confusing. If they are not exempted from the export control procedure, it should apply to them. How about They cannot be exported from the U.S. because they are encryption software packages that are not covered by the export control procedure that is used for packages in Main... instead? Thanks for reviewing this. -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux
Re: Non-US definition
Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Matt Kraai wrote: * it contains cryptographic program code which needed to be stored on a non-US server because of United States export restrictions, or This is no longer true. Uh, I agree that such packages no longer need to be in a non-US section. But this is the reason why the majority of such packages are there now, right (note the reason says `needed', not `need')? * it contains program code which needs to be stored on a non-US server because of United States patents. This is. What does this mean for users, ftp mirrors, and CD distributors in the United States? Can they legally use, mirror, or distribute such software therein? I also thought of another potential reason: * it contains program code which needs to be stored on a non-US server because of the DMCA. Are any packages in a non-US section for this reason? If not, are such packages allowed? Matt pgpwVpAuO0NNB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Non-US definition
Howdy, The package information page[1] contains the following description of the Non-US section: Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free These packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free. The CD FAQ[2] contains the following description: There are two variants of the binary-1 CD, one with and one without software of the non-US category. Non-US software may be imported into the US without problems, but exporting it from the US is forbidden by law (it contains strong cryptographic code). I suppose both of these will need to be updated once the crypto-in-main transition is complete. I am primarily concerned with the status of patent-encumbered software, however. May it be distributed within the USA? How does this avoid the patent problems? Matt 1. http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages 2. http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/ pgpKlwEs8V0ZD.pgp Description: PGP signature
