Re: Winetricks may be inciting copyright infringement
On Aug 12, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Hendrik Weimer wrote: > Mateusz Jończyk writes: > >> Unfortunately, many libraries that it distributes are illegal to install on >> Linux or it is legal to install them under limited circumstances (such as >> having a Windows license). > > So what? winetricks is not part of main, so it is the responsibility of > the user to ensure compliance with the license. Winetricks is part of contrib, and the debian website states "Every package in contrib must comply with the DFSG." [1]. If winetricks turns out to be DFSG incompatible (the requirement of having a MS Windows license suggests that is the case), maybe it should be moved to non-free? [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-contrib -- 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/886eca64-e3d6-4c5e-8efd-3d4c4d919...@gmail.com
Re: Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!
On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > I'm going to copy this (and bounce the last mail here) to debian-legal. > > Again, I'd like to stress how much I really dislike the idea of another > license written for fun. +1. > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:13:33PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: >> >> S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at http://www.elstel.org/license/ >> >> Having clearly considered your critics I have published a reworked >> edition >> of S-FSL which should more strictly adhere to the terms of OSS-software. >> As you can understand and as I have already partially described there are >> still issues to me which discourage me from using an existing license like >> f.i. GPL or BSD. >> >> The new license is posted here for public review. From S-FSL v.1.3.3 [http://www.elstel.org/license/S-FSL-v1.3.3.txt]: "The program may be distributed by a third party given that the program is distributed in its original state completely without any kind of modifications or patches. If you need to re-distribute a patched version of this program you need to distribute the patches separately from the original so that the pristine version can be restored at any time." As Paul wrote, this seems incompatible with DFSG #3 - and possibly #4 as well. "As far as you are not a public distributor you are oblidged to send a copy of your patches to the original authors referred to herein as the authors of the first version of the program as being listed in the changelog or program header whenever you publish or exchange your patches with other people." This fails the 'Desert Island' test in the DFSG FAQ #9(a). Also, 'public distributor' is not properly defined in this part of the license. "Modifications applied to this program may not affect the name, original version, copyright or any reference given to the authors such as their email addresses or their web presence and/or page in any part of the program or any files attached to the program. [...] If you want to develop a separate branch of this program the original authors need to give you permission. Developing a separate branch means not to use the naming convention proposed in the preceding paragraph." If one were to redistribute the program under a different name that would require permission from the original authors? That seems not compatible with DFSG #3. "Distribution of the program by third parties must be done free of charge apart from fees for the physical reproduction of the data medium." Seems incompatible with DFSG #1. -- 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/b09dc913-f8e2-4ea9-82c8-2a6b44973...@gmail.com
Re: ODbL / DbCL licenses: not DFSG compliant?
Dear Charles, On Sep 22, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Nick Oosterhof a écrit : >> >> are the Open Database License (ODbL) [1] and Database Contents License >> (DbCL) DSFG [2] compliant? [...] I found an earlier thread [3] where it was >> argued that section 4.6 of the ODbL [1] makes it non-compliant (I presume >> with DSFG 1) [section 4.6 requires that using the database and distributing >> the results requires making the database or 'patch' files available for >> non-profit costs ] >> >> which would restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced >> Work for significant (higher than reasonable production) cost. >> >> Is that a reasonable interpretation? > > in case of use for profit, the section 4.6 requires that the customer can > access to what the DFSG call "source code" or "patch files", with no > unreasonable additional cost. It therefore does not restrict people from > selling a Derivative Database or Produced Work for significant cost. Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand this better now: a customer who pays for the database has to have access to the database can decide for theirselves whether to sell the database to others. > > This is similar to the requirements for conveying non-source forms in the GPL > and the AGPL, which are accepted as Free by Debian. Ok, that makes sense. > I have not studied the other clauses of the ODbL, but section 4.6 therefore > does not seem to make it non-free. Great, thanks for your help in clarifying this. best, Nick -- 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/40331d36-2059-4387-a85a-f5465e460...@gmail.com
ODbL / DbCL licenses: not DFSG compliant?
Greetings, are the Open Database License (ODbL) [1] and Database Contents License (DbCL) DSFG [2] compliant? It seems they are not, but I would like to make sure. Specifically I found an earlier thread [3] where it was argued that section 4.6 of the ODbL [1] makes it non-compliant (I presume with DSFG 1), as this section reads: "Access to Derivative Databases. If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.) must be available at no more than a reasonable production cost for physical distributions and free of charge if distributed over the internet." which would restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced Work for significant (higher than reasonable production) cost. Is that a reasonable interpretation? Thanks for your consideration, Nick [1] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/08/msg00036.html -- 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/e94b47d0-2928-44f4-a9d8-0366ba9ee...@gmail.com
Re: ODC-By license -- DFSG-compliant?
On Sep 20, 2013, at 3:56 AM, MJ Ray wrote: > On 09/19/13 23:59, Nick Oosterhof wrote: >> I [NNO] also subscribed to the debian-legal list. > > Should we stop cc'ing? Yes please, thanks. > >>>> 2.4 Relationship to Contents in the Database. [...] >>> So I think it will nearly always need another licence to make a package >>> meet DFSG because it does not cover the copyright of the Contents (see 2.2). >> >> Can the Contents be licensed under ODC-By as well, or would that create >> something circular / recursive? > > I think that would create an absurdity, a licence for Contents that says > it does not apply to Contents = no valid licence = all rights reserved. I see. So one would need to use another license for Contents. > >> [...] If not, what other license would be suitable? > > OKFN publish http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ but I don't > know if any volunteers have reviewed that for debian, I've got to get to > work soon and it would probably be better as its own thread, for > visiblity. Based on my personal experience of Rufus and others at OKFN, > I'd be surprised if one of their licences failed DFSG. All right, I'll start a new thread on this. > I think sometimes there could be insufficient creativity in the Contents > (so no copyright) and a Public Domain Declaration or CC0 may be best, > depending on the laws where it was created; but I'd strongly suggest > considering MIT/Expat, BSD or GPL, depending on your aims. Some argue > against using them for data Indeed, for example opendatacommons.org says in their FAQ [1]: "Why Not Use a Creative Commons (or Free/Open Source Software License) for Data(bases)? Different types of subject matter (e.g. code, content or data) necessitate differences in licensing. Licenses designed for one type of subject matter — as CC licenses were designed for content, and F/OSS licenses for code — aren’t always best suited to licensing another type of subject matter." [1] http://opendatacommons.org/faq/licenses/ > , but MIT and BSD aren't limited to programs > and the GPL definition of "Program" is wide enough to cope with anything. I see - though when there is no clear agreement across people I'd prefer using a license that is specifically aimed at distributing data / databases . > > [3.3 multiple licensing] >>> How does multiple-licensing interact with section 4.2.a? Can we >>> distribute under a multiple-licensing ourselves? >> >> I would assume that the Licensor, if they made the Database, is allowed to >> license the Database under multiple License. Is it correct to interpret the >> foregoing as that if You receive the same database under multiple licenses, >> then You are can choose whichever license to use. If you choose to use the >> ODC-By license, then you are bound by section 4.2. > > Yeah, the Licensor can do anything, but that includes things that don't > meet the DFSG. So might this mean that something multiple licensed > could fail DFSG if both licences require us to use only that licence. Are there any licenses that do this? For example, my understanding is that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are 'incompatible', but if someone releases the work under "GLPv2 or GLPv3 (at your option)", then someone else can take that work, modify it, and redistribute the derived work again under "GLPv2 or GLPv3 (at your option)" (or just under one of these licenses only). no? > >> [...] So the remaining question is, I think, whether Content can be licensed >> under ODC-By. If not, another question is whether it has to be licensed >> under another license, and if so, which license would be most appropriate. > > No and (as ever) it depends on the aim but I'd prefer one of MIT/BSD/GPL. > > Hope that helps, It did - thanks for your help. -- 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/f432d870-08d2-479d-b182-cc871f910...@gmail.com
Re: ODC-By license -- DFSG-compliant?
Dear MJ Ray, thanks for looking into this. On Sep 19, 2013, at 1:45 PM, MJ Ray wrote: > On 09/12/13 17:33, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: >> Do you foresee any problems with >> Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By) v1.0 > > Thanks for searching before asking. What package are you considering > this for? In the future this /may/ end up in BioSig [1]. But more generally we would like to share neuroimaging data (fMRI, MEEG) collected from human participants and/or phantoms, in the context of cognitive neuroscience .experiments. [1] http://biosig.sourceforge.net/index.html > It will almost always need to be > combined with (an) other licence(s), but it seems to meet DFSG 1, 2, 3 > and 7 without violating 4, 5, 6, 8 or 9, so I don't see any other problems. That's good to hear. > >> P.S. Please maintain CC to Nick in the replies. > > Done. Thanks. I also subscribed to the debian-legal list. > > Quoting key sections: > >> 2.4 Relationship to Contents in the Database. [...] > So I think it will nearly always need another licence to make a package > meet DFSG because it does not cover the copyright of the Contents (see 2.2). Can the Contents be licensed under ODC-By as well, or would that create something circular / recursive? If not, what other license would be suitable? Some use cases are: 1) recording of a few seconds of 'noise' with a set of MEEG channels to test i/o functionality for a particular data format 2) pre-processed and fully anonymized data from a human participant (who has given consent that the data (Database+Content) can be distributed under ODC-By) In each case the data itself is organized in a particular way and thus may - I think - be considered as a database itself. For example, (1) data for each combination of time point and channel could be the Content. (2) data at each brain location and time point could be Content. Then the full dataset would be a Database. Does this make sense, and if so, is a separate license needed for Content? (of note is that is debatable to what extent Content as defined above could be considered a creative work - in other words, whether it can be copyrighted.) > > >> 3.3 The right to release the Database under different terms, or to stop >> distributing or making available the Database, is reserved. Note that >> this Database may be multiple-licensed, and so You may have the choice >> of using alternative licenses for this Database. Subject to Section >> 10.4, all other rights not expressly granted by Licensor are reserved. > > How does multiple-licensing interact with section 4.2.a? Can we > distribute under a multiple-licensing ourselves? I would assume that the Licensor, if they made the Database, is allowed to license the Database under multiple License. Is it correct to interpret the foregoing as that if You receive the same database under multiple licenses, then You are can choose whichever license to use. If you choose to use the ODC-By license, then you are bound by section 4.2. So the remaining question is, I think, whether Content can be licensed under ODC-By. If not, another question is whether it has to be licensed under another license, and if so, which license would be most appropriate. Thanks again, best, Nick
