Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
[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. Michael -- Michael Hanke http://mih.voxindeserto.de -- 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/20110428152046.GA11012@meiner
Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?
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. 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? Thanks, Michael -- Michael Hanke http://mih.voxindeserto.de -- 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/20110427194232.GA16446@meiner
Re: Copyright in public domain package
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:35:54AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [ Please keep me CC'ed, I'm not subscribed. ] > [...] > > I talked to upstream and they replaced those statement with something > > like the following to make their software acceptable for Debian main: > > > > # The immv file was originally part of FSL - FMRIB's Software Library > > # http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl > > # immv has now been placed in the public domain. > > # > > # Developed at FMRIB (Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance > > # Imaging of the Brain), Department of Clinical Neurology, Oxford > > # University, Oxford, UK > > > > This should be unambiguous, correct? > > Sorry, I think it's ambiguous. The UK Patent Office (www.patent.gov.uk, > who also handle much to do with copyright, sadly) sometimes uses 'in the > public domain' to mean that something has been published or offered for > sale to the public. > > How has it 'been placed in the public domain'? I am not aware of any > way to do that in Oxford besides copyright expiring, or the work somehow > not qualifying for automatic copyright protection anyway. It may be > possible to disclaim all copyright interest in a work, but I'm not sure > how to do that. I'm not sure whether I understood completely what you said. I thought the term 'public domain' states that the authors disclaim ANY copyright of there work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I also do not understand what you mean by 'do that in Oxford'. The original authors of fsliolib (the relevant part of the package wrt this copyright issue) are part of the nifticlib upstream team. The whole thing is a joint effort the create a common or standard format for medical-imaging data. So effectively fsliolib upstream disclaims the copyright of their own work. If there is a better way to state this fact, I would be happy to forward this information to upstream. > Please ask them to use a MIT/X11-like licence or similar liberal terms. > If they need specific help, I think oss-watch.ac.uk is still based in > Oxford. AFAIK upstream explicitely want this to be without any copyright. > > What is the appropriate way to note this combination of licenses in the > > package. Do I simply add this additional copyright to debian/copyright? > > Yes, simply list all relevant permission statements. Thanks. I'll added the missing statement. I hope there is a way to get this package in a shape to be acceptable for Debian main. Thanks, Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke ICQ: 48230050 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright in public domain package
Hi, [ Please keep me CC'ed, I'm not subscribed. ] I packaged nifiticlib, a software that is placed into the public domain. The source package is available from mentors.d.n: http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=nifticlib The previous version of the above package was rejected by ftp-masters because some source code files contained a statement like: 'This is part of FSL' and a URL. If one visits the URL it is obvious that FSL has a non-free license. I talked to upstream and they replaced those statement with something like the following to make their software acceptable for Debian main: # The immv file was originally part of FSL - FMRIB's Software Library # http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl # immv has now been placed in the public domain. # # # Developed at FMRIB (Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance # Imaging of the Brain), Department of Clinical Neurology, Oxford # University, Oxford, UK This should be unambiguous, correct? One possible issue remains. The source tarball contains a another header file with a copyright from a different author (fsliolib/dbh.h). nifticlib upstream has permission to republish this header file (as stated in the main header niftilib/nifti1.h). What is the appropriate way to note this combination of licenses in the package. Do I simply add this additional copyright to debian/copyright? I'd be glad to hear your suggestions. Thanks in advance, Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke ICQ: 48230050 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
