Re: free source code which requires non-free tools to build (dscaler modules for tvtime)
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:08:59PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: However, there are some additional source code modules in DScaler which have not (yet?) been ported to build and run under Linux. These are also useful for tvtime, and it can make use of them by loading them in binary (DLL) form using WINE. [...] 2. If the DLLs are included in contrib, I assume that the package must include the corresponding source code for GPL compliance, even though it cannot be built on Debian, and would not be touched during the package build process. Is this correct? Thanks for all the feedback so far. I have one further question: I'm having some difficulty interpreting paragraph 3 of the GPL in this case, due to the unusual situation of using the Windows executable on a non-Windows platform. I'll include the paragraph from the GPL verbatim here for reference: | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making | modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means | all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated | interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation | and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the | source code distributed need not include anything that is normally | distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components | (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the | executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. To me, it seems clear that the intent is to allow someone who already has a build environment, capable of producing hello world on their target platform, to compile the source code. So, if I have a Windows build environment (or equivalent tools on another platform), I can build the Windows executable. Or, if I have a Linux build environment, I would have enough information to try to port it. Legally, how does this apply to running a Windows executable using WINE? It would seem to depend on the interpretation of the operating system on which the executable runs. It could either be the operating system for which the executable is built or the operating system on which the executable is being run. The former interpretation seems much more sensible to me, but again, I would appreciate a second opinion. -- - mdz
Re: free source code which requires non-free tools to build (dscaler modules for tvtime)
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:01:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: A split of the tvtime upstream distribution is necessary no matter what; but as I understand it, the bit that would go into contrib could be omitted entirely. I presume the maintainer wants to go ahead and provide the contrib components as a service to our users. The tvtime distribution either must be split upstream, or the Debian .orig.tar.gz must be distinct from the upstream distribution (the former is obviously preferable). The modules which only build on Windows are apparently some of the more interesting ones, so yes, the author wants them to be provided as a service to the users. -- - mdz
free source code which requires non-free tools to build (dscaler modules for tvtime)
tvtime is a high-quality television application for use with video capture cards, which builds, runs and works on Debian, licensed under the GPL. Simon Law has filed an ITP (#171480). http://tvtime.sourceforge.net/ DScaler is a similar piece of software for Windows platforms, also licensed under the GPL. http://deinterlace.sourceforge.net/about.htm tvtime borrows some source code directly from DScaler, as some of its modules have been ported to build and run under Linux. This is business as usual, and obviously all of this stuff can go in main. However, there are some additional source code modules in DScaler which have not (yet?) been ported to build and run under Linux. These are also useful for tvtime, and it can make use of them by loading them in binary (DLL) form using WINE. I discussed this situation with the upstream author of tvtime, and I would appreciate confirmation on a few points: 1. Can the binary DLLs go in contrib? The source code is free, but requires non-free tools (for Windows) in order to build. I believe this is the same situation that openoffice.org is in (which is in contrib), but I would appreciate a second opinion. 2. If the DLLs are included in contrib, I assume that the package must include the corresponding source code for GPL compliance, even though it cannot be built on Debian, and would not be touched during the package build process. Is this correct? 3. tvtime currently distributes its source code together with these binary modules in a single distribution tarball. I assume this needs to be split up into separate source packages for main and contrib, so that tvtime itself can build a binary package for main. Is this correct? -- - mdz
Bug#191717: automake1.6: install-sh licensing nightmare?
Package: automake1.6 Version: 1.6.3-5 Severity: serious I noticed this from a discussion in #148412 about gimp's licensing) mizar:[~] head -16 /usr/share/automake-1.6/install-sh #!/bin/sh # # install - install a program, script, or datafile # This comes from X11R5 (mit/util/scripts/install.sh). # # Copyright 1991 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology # # Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its # documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that # the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that # copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting # documentation, and that the name of M.I.T. not be used in advertising or # publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, # written prior permission. M.I.T. makes no representations about the # suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided as is # without express or implied warranty. Not only does automake not reproduce these notices in its documentation, as required, but it also automatically installs a copy of install-sh into automake-using packages when --add-missing is used. The authors of these other software packages are almost certainly not aware of this clause in the install-sh license and how it affects their programs. This problem also applies to automake1.4, and probably all other versions as well. -- - mdz
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:41:00PM +0100, Gabucino wrote: I think it is unfortunate to disable media playing by default in one of the biggest Linux distributions in 2003, just because maybe some patent holder _may_ come and sue. I do understand your viewpoint. I just don't agree with it. There is no reason why this software cannot be used on Debian systems by Debian users, but it is unreasonable to expect Debian to assume the legal risk of distributing this software. In this case, 'Debian' includes CD vendors, mirror archive operators, and a lot of other intermediaries who may not even be aware of the legal situation. Surely you realize that we are not the only distribution taking this stance. For example: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html This is not idealism; it is self-preservation. With some other software packages, this problem is addressed by taking measures to only distribute such software from countries which do not honor software patents (the now-less-aptly-named non-US archive). However, this issue is generally unclear (at least to me) with regard to what can legally be used or distributed in which countries. afford a lawyer that can estimate the danger, but it is then still _risk_. Life is risky. Indeed, and individuals and organizations must manage their own risk. You cannot expect to coerce anyone else into taking a risk that they are not willing to accept. If you are willing to assume the risk, why not distribute Debian packages on the mplayer site? There are plenty of Debian developers willing to maintain such packages. -- - mdz
IBM JDK 1.3 license
What is the current consensus on the IBM JDK license? Text (conversion) and HTML (as distributed) are attached. They seem to have removed the RedHat/Caldera-only clause that I remember seeing in earlier builds. We clearly cannot redistribute it, since the redistribution terms would require the redistributor to somehow prohibit the recipient from using the software in various ways. Could it be legal to create an installer package, like ibm-jdk1.1-installer? -- - mdz Title: Software License International License Agreement for Non-Warranted Programs Part 1 - General Terms PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE PROGRAM. IBM WILL LICENSE THE PROGRAM TO YOU ONLY IF YOU FIRST ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. BY USING THE PROGRAM YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNUSED PROGRAM TO THE PARTY (EITHER IBM OR ITS RESELLER) FROM WHOM YOU ACQUIRED IT TO RECEIVE A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT YOU PAID. The Program is owned by International Business Machines Corporation or one of its subsidiaries (IBM) or an IBM supplier, and is copyrighted and licensed, not sold. The term "Program" means the original program and all whole or partial copies of it. A Program consists of machine- readable instructions, its components, data, audio-visual content (such as images, text, recordings, or pictures), and related licensed materials. This Agreement includes Part 1 - General Terms and Part 2 - Country-unique Terms and is the complete agreement regarding the use of this Program, and replaces any prior oral or written communications between you and IBM. The terms of Part 2 may replace or modify those of Part 1. 1. License Use of the Program IBM grants you a nonexclusive license to use the Program. You may 1) use the Program to the extent of authorizations you have acquired and 2) make and install copies to support the level of use authorized, providing you reproduce the copyright notice and any other legends of ownership on each copy, or partial copy, of the Program. If you acquire this Program as a program upgrade, your authorization to use the Program from which you upgraded is terminated. You will ensure that anyone who uses the Program does so only in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. You may not 1) use, copy, modify, or distribute the Program except as provided in this Agreement; 2) reverse assemble, reverse compile, or otherwise translate the Program except as specifically permitted by law without the possibility of contractual waiver; or 3) sublicense, rent, or lease the Program. Transfer of Rights and Obligations You may transfer all your license rights and obligations under a Proof of Entitlement for the Program to another party by transferring the Proof of Entitlement and a copy of this Agreement and all documentation. The transfer of your license rights and obligations terminates your authorization to use the Program under the Proof of Entitlement. 2. Proof of Entitlement The Proof of Entitlement for this Program is evidence of your authorization to use this Program and of your eligibility for future upgrade program prices (if announced) and potential special or promotional opportunities. 3. Charges and Taxes IBM defines use for the Program for charging purposes and specifies it in the Proof of Entitlement. Charges are based on extent of use authorized. If you wish to increase the extent of use, notify IBM or its reseller and pay any applicable charges. IBM does not give refunds or credits for charges already due or paid. If any authority imposes a duty, tax, levy or fee, excluding those based on IBM's net income, upon the Program supplied by IBM under this Agreement, then you agree to pay that amount as IBM specifies or supply exemption documentation. 4. No Warranty SUBJECT TO ANY STATUTORY WARRANTIES WHICH CAN NOT BE EXCLUDED, IBM MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE WARRANTY OF NON- INFRINGEMENT AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, REGARDING THE PROGRAM OR TECHNICAL SUPPORT, IF ANY. IBM MAKES NO WARRANTY REGARDING THE CAPABILITY OF THE PROGRAM TO CORRECTLY PROCESS, PROVIDE AND/OR RECEIVE DATE DATA WITHIN AND BETWEEN THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES. The exclusion also applies to any of IBM's subcontractors, suppliers, or program developers (collectively called "Suppliers"). Manufacturers, suppliers, or publishers of non-IBM Programs may provide their own warranties. 5. Limitation of Liability NEITHER IBM NOR ITS SUPPLIERS WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, LOST SAVINGS, OR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR OTHER ECONOMIC CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF IBM IS INFORMED OF THEIR POSSIBILITY. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE
Depending on non-US libs
Policy says of uploading to non-US: This applies only to packages which contain cryptographic code. A package containing a program with an interface to a cryptographic program or a program that's dynamically linked against a cryptographic library should not be distributed via the non-US server if it is capable of running without the cryptographic library or program. In this case, the program is literally capable of running without the cryptographic library or program, but will have significantly reduced functionality (its primary function, uploading its reports, is broken). Does this program need to go in non-US, and if so, is it legal for me to upload it there? - Forwarded message from Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:05:33 -0500 From: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Depending on non-US libs As I understand it, software which links with crypto libs must (still) be uploaded to non-US. I have packaged the ARIS Extractor from SecurityFocus, which links with libcurl to perform an HTTPS POST request. Though it seems to run fine with non-SSL libcurl, it cannot fulfill its intended purpose without SSL support. Should I: 1. Leave the dependencies as determined by the shlibs file from libcurl, which says that either libcurl or libcurl-ssl is OK, and upload to main. There is nothing in ARIS Extractor which could even be considered a hook to something definitively cryptographic, so this should be legal, yes? Of course, the software would not be useful without libcurl-ssl, and that is undesirable. 2. Depend on libcurl-ssl only and upload to non-US. Is this legal? (I am in the US, but ARIS Extractor contains no crypto) 3. Hand off the package to someone in the free world ? -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] - End forwarded message - -- - mdz
ARIS extractor license...free?
It explicitly grants permission to modify and distribute, and for those receiving the software to have the same freedom. Is it necessary to explicitly state that it is OK to distribute modified versions? What about the advertising clause at the end? TERMS AND CONDITIONS Copyright (c) 2001 SecurityFocus Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, and/or distribute copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL SECURITYFOCUS.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, the name of SecurityFocus shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from SecurityFocus. -- - mdz
BitKeeper
(crossposted to debian-legal for input on the license; please direct followups to -devel or -legal as appropriate) Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem to like it, and some of the licensing restrictions are arguably in defense of other kinds of freedom. I am not interested in packaging it at this time, but I might file an RFP unless someone knows of a reason why it can't be packaged for non-free. [0] http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Source.html -- - mdz
