Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image
On 07/31/2012 09:51 PM, Bart Martens wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:25:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:03:52PM +0200, Michael Wild wrote: >> >>> I'm maintaining a package that contains an EPS image created with Adobe >>> Illustrator and hence contains postscript library code that is >>> copyrighted by Adobe, e.g.: >> >>> * Copyright(C)2000-2006 Adobe Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved >>> * Copyright(C)1997-2007 Adobe Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. >>> * Copyright 1997-2006 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. >>> * Copyright 1987-2006 Adobe Systems Incorporated. >> >>> and so on. >> >>> Does this make the file non-redistributable and non-DFSG free? If not, >>> would I need to list all these copyright statements into debian/copyright? >> >>> Strange thing is, most of it is simply boilerplate that is not even >>> used. Running it through eps2eps (a ghostscript wrapper) brings the file >>> down from 220K to 4K! >> >> A copyright statement does not, by itself, say anything about the license of >> the work. Since Illustrator is frequently used for producing output files >> that are expected to be distributed, it would be reasonable to assume that >> the output is liberally licensed and that whatever license is listed in the >> package is in fact the correct one, with no other license attaching to this >> output. >> >> If you find an authoritative license statement to the contrary, *then* we >> should worry about whether this is non-redistributable. > > The user of Adobe Illustrator may have had the intention to create files that > can be freely redistributed. If parts of the files are copyrighted by Adobe > (Michael wrote "contains postscript library code that is copyrighted by > Adobe") > without license from Adobe, then the files cannot be freely redistributed. > > Regards, > > Bart Martens Well, the expectation is that if you purchase a license to use Adobe Illustrator that then you are allowed to redistribute the produced files under whatever conditions as you like. Apart from the problem of whether the stripped image would be free of the restrictions imposed by the Adobe copyright, I just noticed that the ghostscript output also contains a block that is licensed as follows: Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved. How would I ask the FTP-masters what they think about the Adobe copyright statements? I'll probably just remove the file as it is just a logo used in the docs. I'll ask upstream whether he would be OK with that. Michael -- 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/501839b8.7060...@gmail.com
Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image
On 07/31/2012 09:17 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Michael Wild wrote: > >> I'm maintaining a package that contains an EPS image created with Adobe >> Illustrator and hence contains postscript library code that is >> copyrighted by Adobe, e.g.: > ... >> Does this make the file non-redistributable and non-DFSG free? If not, >> would I need to list all these copyright statements into debian/copyright? > > Probably both. > >> Strange thing is, most of it is simply boilerplate that is not even >> used. Running it through eps2eps (a ghostscript wrapper) brings the file >> down from 220K to 4K! > > Please ask upstream to replace it with the stripped version. Will do. Would it be acceptable if I import a new, DFSG-clean version where I do the replacement myself? Thanks for the advice. Michael -- 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/50183138.7070...@gmail.com
Non-free postscript code in EPS image
Dear all I'm maintaining a package that contains an EPS image created with Adobe Illustrator and hence contains postscript library code that is copyrighted by Adobe, e.g.: * Copyright(C)2000-2006 Adobe Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved * Copyright(C)1997-2007 Adobe Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. * Copyright 1997-2006 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. * Copyright 1987-2006 Adobe Systems Incorporated. and so on. Does this make the file non-redistributable and non-DFSG free? If not, would I need to list all these copyright statements into debian/copyright? Strange thing is, most of it is simply boilerplate that is not even used. Running it through eps2eps (a ghostscript wrapper) brings the file down from 220K to 4K! Thanks for your advice. Michael -- 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/50182c18.7010...@users.sourceforge.net
Re: need help with openscad's license
On 01/08/2012 10:22 PM, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:22:38 +0100 chrysn wrote: > >> hello debian-legal, > > Hello chrysn! > >> >> as a part of my intent to package openscad (#583476), i want to ask you >> for help with the package's licensing. > > Thanks for trying hard to solve this issue in the best possible way. > >> >> as outlined in the itp, the package is gpl-2+ itself and depends heavily >> on libcgal, which is qpl and thus in non-free, which sends openscad to >> contrib. > > Have you tried to persuade libcgal copyright holder(s) to re-license > libcgal under the GNU GPL v2 or later, or under the GNU LGPL v2.1, or, > at least, to dual-license it under the QPL and one GPLv2-compatible > license? > This much more radical approach could make openscad suitable for > inclusion in Debian main! > Now *that* would be something really worth fighting for! ;-) AFAIK CGAL 4.0 will be GPL/LGPL. So, all OpenSCAD would need to do is jump from 3.9 to 4 of CGAL. No idea how big that jump is, though... Michael -- 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/4f3a81bc.9090...@users.sourceforge.net
Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian
On 04/24/2011 12:07 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Stefan Hirschmann wrote: >> The lawyer wants the poster to pay 700 Euro and stop uploading of Debian. >> - >> My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation and >> the project should take legal action against the lawyer and this company. > > It's my understanding that in Germany lawyers can do this to copyright > violators even though they are not the copyright holder. And it's very > likely > he's a copyright violator, so there's not much Debian can do. No, really. > > The GPL V2 requires that if you distribute, you either > a) accompany a binary with the source code > b) accompany it with a written offer to give everyone a copy of the source > code for three years, or > c) accompany it with an offer to distribute source code, if it's > noncommercial > distribution and you received the program inder b). > > It's very unlikely that b or c applies, and most people who torrent Linux > don't put a copy of the source code in the torrent, so a is unlikely. The > problem is that on Bittorrent, everyone who downloads also uploads. This > makes it illegal to download just a binary, since if you do that you're > also > uploading just a binary, and uploading just a binary is a form of > distribution > the GPL doesn't allow. > > Which means he's (probably) technically a copyright violator, just a > copyright > violator that everyone has agreed to ignore because the GPL V2 is unwieldy > that way. But lawyers in Germany can go after copyright violators who the > copyright holders ignore. > > The GPL V3 had to have a clause written in specifically allowing Bittorrent > (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#BitTorrent) because of the > problems legally using it with V2. > > As absurd as this argumentation sounds to me (but then I'm a mere engineer and find matters of law often to be very confusing), following it makes the Debian project a direct accomplice in copyright violation, see http://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd. By providing these torrents, the Debian project makes everybody in Germany who uses them a copyright violator. Michael -- 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/4db3e5d7.7050...@gmail.com
Re: Question about the criteria for a library to be in contrib
On 04/05/2011 03:05 PM, Hendrik Weimer wrote: > Michael Wild writes: > >> On 04/05/2011 03:23 AM, Hendrik Weimer wrote: >>> Michael Wild writes: >>> >>>> I find this hard to believe, since the package only uses the free >>>> and publicly available API defined by the Khronos group and it is >>>> up to the user of the package against which implementation of >>>> OpenCL he wishes to link. >>> >>> How is this different from Java before OpenJDK was released? >> >> I think it is different because the package will only contain source >> code. It hasn't been processed by or linked against any proprietary, >> non-free software. Of course, one could argue that it is implicitly tied >> to non-free software since there is currently no alternative. So, for >> me, this is kind of a conundrum :-) > > The question is whether one can use ViennaCL without an OpenCL > implementation. If not, then the ViennaCL package must depend on an > OpenCL package, no matter whether it is source code only or not. > >> BTW, there is a free implementation of OpenCL in the works in Mesa, >> called Clover [1]. However, I'm not sure how far along it is and how >> active it is, the last commit is from late November, last year. > > If Clover gets packaged and you can use ViennaCL with it, I see no > problem for the latter to go into main. > > Hendrik So, this means that ViennaCL must Depends: on some OpenCL implementation. Currently the only one packaged in Debian (still in experimental) I can find is the one from NVIDIA. So, this probably means then that it really has to go into contrib, right? Reading the ITP for the OpenCL headers [1] also confirms this. Thanks for the help Michael [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=598477 -- 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/4d9b1947.60...@gmail.com
Re: Question about the criteria for a library to be in contrib
On 04/05/2011 03:23 AM, Hendrik Weimer wrote: > Michael Wild writes: > >> I find this hard to believe, since the package only uses the free >> and publicly available API defined by the Khronos group and it is >> up to the user of the package against which implementation of >> OpenCL he wishes to link. > > How is this different from Java before OpenJDK was released? > > Hendrik I think it is different because the package will only contain source code. It hasn't been processed by or linked against any proprietary, non-free software. Of course, one could argue that it is implicitly tied to non-free software since there is currently no alternative. So, for me, this is kind of a conundrum :-) BTW, there is a free implementation of OpenCL in the works in Mesa, called Clover [1]. However, I'm not sure how far along it is and how active it is, the last commit is from late November, last year. Michael [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/clover -- 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/4d9a9df7.80...@gmail.com
Question about the criteria for a library to be in contrib
Hi all I recently filed the IPT http://bugs.debian.org/620135 for the ViennaCL [1] library. It is a header-only library (i.e. there is no binary package, only header files are installed), that uses OpenCL. So, only when the user of the package compiles a program using ViennaCL it is his responsibility to make sure that there is an implementation of OpenCL present on his system. Unfortunately, currently there are no free implementations of OpenCL available, so the user has to resort to the proprietary libraries made available by either Nvidia or AMD. So, David Brenmer raised the question [3] whether ViennaCL would be forced to be in contrib because of that fact. I find this hard to believe, since the package only uses the free and publicly available API defined by the Khronos group and it is up to the user of the package against which implementation of OpenCL he wishes to link. I hope somebody here can shed some light on this issue. Thanks and all the best Michael [1] http://viennacl.sf.net [2] http://www.khronos.org/opencl/ [3] http://bugs.debian.org/620135#15 -- 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/4d9a1ee3.4010...@gmail.com
