Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Is this intentional? No. Because the grant of licence DOES allow regrading, therefore what any particular version of the GPL says is irrelevant. The recipient CAN change the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant* gives him permission. I can only combine works licensed under this license with works that allow changing to gpl2 *and* allow changing back to gpl3 *and* allow changing back to gpl3. That's what 4d says. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- 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/20100423085157.ga28...@anguilla.noreply.org
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010, Dererk wrote: 1. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 2 as distributed here: 2. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 3, as found in the file COPYING and distributed here: 3. You may use, modify, and redistributed the software under any version of the GPL greater than 3. 4. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under a modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL) that places additional restrictions on advertising and labeling of the software, provided that all of the following conditions are met: d. All recipients of the software retain the ability to distribute the software under any subset they wish of conditions 1-3 of this license provided they remove the incoporated OpenSSL library. So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter does not allow downgrading to gpl2 (or upgrading to gpl3+). Is this intentional? -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- 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/20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org
Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? Stay with 1.1 or later. Basically, unless YOU have the right to RElicence, you can't change the licence. And I doubt you have that right. The licensor has given you the right to use it under a later licence. But unless they gave you the right to CHANGE the licence (which I doubt) then you don't have the right to take 1.1 away. I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't have to redistribute it (or any work based on it) under all of those licenses. That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. Whether or not that's a good idea is a different matter. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: acceptable copyright?
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004, Jörgen Hägg wrote: /* | Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software | */ /* | and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby | */ ^^^ /* | granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all | */ /* | copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission | */ /* | notice appear in supporting documentation. This software is| */ /* | provided as is without express or implied warranty. | */ /* +---+ */ Does this mean I may not charge for distrubution? (DFSG #1). -- Peter
Re: crypto in non-free (again)
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: [pgp5] Besides, the Unix has a bug in the way it reads /dev/random that make keys generated by it non-secure. I think that bug has been fixed in 5.0-6: * Reading from /dev/random now really produces random data. Fixes a grave bug in the woody fork. (#64609) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: how (not) to write copyright files
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Christian Kurz wrote: On [15/12/03 1:59], Peter Palfrader wrote: | Authors: Donald Duck, Daisy Duck | | Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001 Donald Duck | 2000, 2002 Daisy Duck | | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify [...] | License, version 2, can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2. Your example only covers the situation where you have an license like the GPL, that is also available in /usr/share/common-licenses. But I'm missing here some information on how to write copyright files if the license isn't available in that directory, if the licenses was written by the author from a scratch or if the license just says Public domain. Copy the copyright statement and license information to your copyright file in verbatim. Also read Andrew Suffield's mail on what you should do when writing a copyright file: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200312/msg00194.html Which also doesn't help anybody in the situations that I described above. If you really want to be helpful and have people check and verify the copyrigh file in their packages, then please provide not only the easiest example that is possible (GPL), but also explain other situations or places where people can ask for help. The debian-legal list certainly is willing to help. Hence the mail-followup-to header was set to this list. Andrew's mail did describe it: | You need to find the bit which says This program is distributable | under (license X|the following license:). [..] | Copy that statement _verbatim_ into the copyright file. I suggest you reread it again. Please do check that your packages' copyright files are ok, a large percentage is not. And how much work would it have been for you, having read several copyright files as it seems, to at least name the ones you found that aren't correct? Because I only checked a hundred or so and over 30 of them were broken. My favorite example so far is fakeroot, but alsa-utils, autotools-dev, bash, bison, busybox-static, ccache, dbs, gq - to only name a few - also have bad copyright files. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Knoppix and GPL
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote: Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific packages is available via the Internet at http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/sources/. You may find the sources for the installed Debian packages on the various Debian mirrors. Additionally, you can order the sources directly from Knopper.Net for the cost of material, copying, packaging and postage. This offer is valid for 3 years, counting from the build ^^^ date of this CD-Rom. Is this good enough? Shouldn't it be date of distribution? Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpEH6n7kgcLw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Knoppix and GPL
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote: On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:18:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote: Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific packages is available via the Internet at http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/sources/. You may find the sources for the installed Debian packages on the various Debian mirrors. Additionally, you can order the sources directly from Knopper.Net for the cost of material, copying, packaging and postage. This offer is valid for 3 years, counting from the build ^^^ date of this CD-Rom. Is this good enough? Shouldn't it be date of distribution? So, where can I get the sources of emacs version 1.0? Who did you get the binaries from, when and under 3a, 3b or 3c? Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpDgcEK8ch34.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Knoppix and GPL
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Darryl Palmer wrote: Looking at the GPL it has this statement: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Now maybe my interpretation is bad but it states that you only have to do one of the following 3 clauses. Clause C does not require that the source be offered for 3 years and since Knoppix is a noncommercial distribution and the offer to distribute it was provided with the CD by listing a valid Internet location to download it, how exactly is it in violation of the GPL? Maybe it is a general misinterpretation that the source has to be available for 3 years, or your are referring to another version of the GPL (This one is GPL license available from http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php). Hardly anybody distributes via 3.b - at least Debian doesn't: we distribute the source alongside the binaries. Therefore nobody who got the software from us can distribute using 3.c. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpodnY2UJGVP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License of ROOT: acceptable for non-free?
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the authors for Debian to distribute packaged binaries of Root, would that be sufficient for it to go into non-free? Being unable to not fix security issues in a timely manner is a Bad Thing. We should not support, endorse or otherwise support such software. Not even in non-free (which is not part of Debian proper). yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpC5zfSZ7PTE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG convergence
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, John Goerzen wrote: Take out the RD and personal use grants. Does it still comply with the DFSG? Now add them back. How is it possible for more freedom to make the software DFSG-nonfree? Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must not be discrimination. If there is -- that is, if different people/groups get different levels of freedom -- then it is not DFSG-free. Foobar is licensed under the GNU General Public License. In addition the every person named Peter the right to sublicense under any license they choose is granted. non-DFSG-free? I think not. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgppp4CukVYb6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Andrea Borgia wrote: On 9 Nov 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: TBBPine prohibits the distribution of modified versions. Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set. My understanding of the license is that that would be perfectly fine. This is not fine. It will not allow to fix security problems. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpUmxLvEW0wR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'. 1) The exact license of the DEC word list is not clear. and then later in the DEC description (NON-)COPYRIGHT STATUS To the best of my knowledge, all the files I used to build these wordlists were available for public distribution and use, at least for non-commercial purposes. I have confirmed this assumption with the authors of the lists, whenever they were known. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package can also be freely copied, distributed, modified, and used for personal, educational, and research purposes. (Use of these files in commercial products may require written permission from DEC and/or the authors of the original lists.) which is clearly not a free license. No, that's not the point. IMHO this is exactly the point. Most of people who actually hold the copyrights (if they even claimed any copyright at all, which is doubtful), are unknown and cannot be contacted. People don't need to assert copyright to have it. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgp2hsKm7VGwB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removal of Email Address
On Sun, 01 Sep 2002, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:17:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Michael Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know if/how well it would work for something as high traffic as the Debian lists but the Nashville Linux User Group website has a tutorial for setting up spam proof mailing list archives by converting all e-mail addresses into images. http://nlug.org/story.php?content_id=45 This solution is unacceptable. Debian has at least one blind developer. At least two. We could always set proper alt tags. SCNR Peter
Re: is mixmaster dfsg-compliant ?
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote: I was looking at the code of mixmaster, an anonymous remailer client/server application. It allows protection against traffic analysis and allows sending email anonymously or pseudonymously. http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net I'm wondering if the licence is DFSG-compliant ? Could any lawyer here give an advice ? As you know I have filed an ITP for mixmaster. And we already had this discussion about two years ago. - License The current license of 2.9* is _not_ DFSG free. The problem is - as has been mentionded - 1.b.iii. Len Sassaman and I are working with the copyright holder to fix this. We have suggested to change 1.b.iii so that if Anonymizer Inc. does not exist any more the 1.b.iii is void. Lance Cotreel of Anonymizer Inc. is not against such a change - his lawyers currently review a changed license. - IDEA Mixmaster is a type-I and type-II remailer. Type-I basically is some PGP voodoo and Type-II a full fledged protocol of its own. Type I may make use of IDEA, type II doesn't need it at all. I've chosen to build mixmaster without IDEA, for the very simple reasons that (1) our openssl doesn't have it and (2) it is non-free. This means in type I remailing we should not offer a RSA OpenPGP code, only a DSA key. No limitation is put on Type-II remailing. The current preliminary packages on non-us.debian.org/~weasel/archive are clearly marked as non-free. I will upload them to the archive once the license issues are resolved. I hope all questions are answered. yours, peter Quoting someone from #remops: DyBBuK rabbi: Let's not bring up IDEA... you know how it makes weasel foam at the mouth. -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgp40eo4BmPkx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote: First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK; renaming foo.c to bar.c doesn't really affect your rights, and is mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on). Why is this obviously OK? DFSG #4 allows people to mandate the change of the name of the work. Requiring name changes of files is too granular. It's not expressly forbidden or expressly allowed, so we have to figure out if it's OK or not. As I mentioned, it doesn't seem onerous as a requirement; just an mv/cp and a few Makefile edits. Would you not need to rename the Makefile too if you edit it? yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgp3qD4l16oT0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote: Note that you do not need to this if you want to change latex behavior. Continuing the analogy, you do have an analog of LD_PRELOAD variable, so you do not need to hack libc.so to achieve anything. But if there was a bug in libc I could fix it and still name it libc and I wouldn't need to rebuild all my dynamically linked programs to take advantage of my fix, would I? yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpSGj9U2XLle.pgp Description: PGP signature
mixmaster license
Hi! I'm currently packagin mixmaster 2.04b45 which is under the gpl, no problem there :). Unfortunaly newer versions of mixmaster are not released under the gpl any more. One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following paragraph (1.b.iii): [you may modify and distribute the source only iff you] provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of such modifications or work by electronic mail, and grant Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and distribute the modifications or work in its products. Am I correct to assume that this would make the package go into non-free? TIA yours, peter References: 1. ftp://mixmaster.anonymizer.com/COPYRIGHT -- PGP encrypted messages prefered. http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~ppalfrad/ pgpDLTcUQXqjE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mixmaster license
On Tue, 09 May 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote: This is similar to the Apple notification clause. If Anonymizer Inc. goes out of business or decides to take down their mail server you can no longer satisfy this term and thus can't modify the software at all. Notification clauses have been argued to violate DFSG #1, #3, #5, and #7. I suspect almost all of these arguments are valid. (Note that it would be fine if it read something like you may modify and distribute the source only iff you provide everyone who recieves a copy of the software and/or your modifications a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and distribute) Thanks to everybody for confirming my view of things. I will check out the differencies between the 2.0.x and the 3.x features more closly and contact Anonymizer Inc. asking whether they would consider a license change if it turns out to be worth the hassle. yours, peter -- PGP encrypted messages prefered. http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~ppalfrad/ pgpsFAb0gH9gQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
