25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source
[Note that I'm not subscribed to either d-d or d-legal so if you want to ask me something, the quickest way is to Cc: me] Hi, I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the note DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade. which indicates the file is generated using the Glade UI editor. Then I checked if these packages have any *.glade* files, which would be the Glade projects, i.e. the source code (at least in the GPL sense, preferred form of modification) for these. For those of these packages for which this is not a false alarm, I believe this would fail DFSG #2, and for those being licensed under GPL, it would probably make them non-distributable. I went through some of these and checked them by hand, and generally couldn't find the glade project anywhere in the source tarball (it might be in the diff, I didn't check for that - would that BTW be OK, to have source code in diff only?). The only questionable case I found by this sampling is dia, where the file is generated by Glade and then hand-coded to make GNOME optional and add the underline for accelerated buttons. I haven't filed bugs for any of these, save for tangogps which was the first case I encountered and after which I got the idea to do this. In addition to the cases I found in main, the packages easyspice and gtktrain in contrib seem suspect too (but I didn't take such a close look). Here's the list of the 25 packages and the relevant source files: bygfoot src/support.c src/misc2_interface.c src/interface.c src/misc2_interface.h src/support.h src/options_interface.c src/options_interface.h src/misc3_interface.c src/misc_interface.c src/interface.h src/misc3_interface.h src/misc_interface.h dia app/sheets_dialog.c: * DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade and then hand-coded app/sheets_dialog.c- * to make GNOME optional and add the underline app/sheets_dialog.c- * for accelerated buttons. app/sheets_dialog.h gcompris src/boards/gtans_support.h src/boards/gtans_interface.h gcrontab gcrontab-0.8.0/src/support.c gcrontab-0.8.0/src/interface.c gcrontab-0.8.0/src/support.h gcrontab-0.8.0/src/interface.h src/support.c src/interface.c src/support.h src/interface.h *** NOTE: yes, I did report also the bug that the source is there twice ggz-gnome-client motd-editor/interface.c motd-editor/interface.h src/support.c src/profilesi.h src/support.h src/msgboxi.c src/profilesi.c src/interface.h src/msgboxi.h ggz-gtk-games chess/support.c chess/support.h combat/support.c combat/support.h dots/support.c dots/support.h hastings/support.c hastings/support.h reversi/support.c reversi/support.h gnusim8085 src/support.c src/interface.c src/support.h src/interface.h gpe-contacts support.c support.h gsetroot src/support.c src/interface.c src/support.h src/interface.h gtans interface.c interface.h support.c support.h gtkpool gtkpool/support.h gtkpool/support.cpp hf hfterm/src/support.c hfterm/src/support.h hoz hozgtk_i.c hozgtk_i.h hozgtk_s.c hozgtk_s.h kmd src/breakview.h src/breakview.c src/breaksupport.h src/breaksupport.c lopster src/support.c src/interface.c src/support.h src/interface.h lxappearance src/glade-support.c src/demo-ui.h src/main-dlg-ui.h src/demo-ui.c src/main-dlg-ui.c src/glade-support.h netmon-applet interface.c interface.h support.c support.h prismstumbler include/support.h src/support.c psemu-video-x11 src/support.c src/interface.c src/support.h src/interface.h tangogps src/support.h src/interface.h teg client/gui-gnome/interface.h timemachine src/support.c src/support.h tleenx2 src/support.c src/interface.c src/support.h src/interface.h trousers src/tspi/gtk/support.c src/tspi/gtk/interface.c src/tspi/gtk/support.h src/tspi/gtk/interface.h xwota src/support.c src/manual.c src/query.h src/station_info.h src/private_messages.h src/private_messages.c src/support.h src/default_preferences.c src/xwota_main.c src/xwota_main.h src/about.c src/private_messages_settings.h src/station_info.c src/manual.h src/query.c src/about.h src/default_preferences.h src/private_messages_settings.c And possibly in contrib: easyspice gtktrain Sami -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#497115: gpsdrive: possibly non-free file scripts/gpsfetchmap.pl
Package: gpsdrive Version: 2.10~pre4-6 Severity: normal [Cc: to debian-legal] Hi, The source package contains the file scripts/gpsfetchmap.pl, which has this copyright notice: #!/usr/bin/perl # gpsfetchmap # # You are allowed to modify the source code in any way you want # except you cannot modify this copyright details # or remove the polite feature. # # NO WARRANTY. and: my $VERSION =gpsfetchmap (c) 2002 Kevin Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (Sep 2002) by Sven Fichtner [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (Nov 2002) by Magnus Månsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (Nov 2003) by camel [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (Feb 2004) by Robin Cornelius [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (Jan 2005) by Joerg Ostertag [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (May 2005) by Olli Salonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (Jul 2005) by Jaroslaw Zachwieja [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (Dec 2005) by David Pollard david dot [EMAIL PROTECTED] modified (Jul 2007) by Maciek Kaliszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Version svn-$Version ; The polite feature apparently refers to an option that sleeps between web server accesses. While arguably a minor restriction, I wonder if debian-legal considers this sufficient to render the file non-free, and whether the terse license clearly enough grants all the permissions required for it to be free. Of course if you feel I'm just nitpicking, feel free to close the bug. Sami -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#497117: tangogps: Contains glade-generated files without source
Package: tangogps Version: 0.9.2-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 [Cc: debian-legal] Hi, The files src/interface.c src/interface.h src/support.h src/support.c appear to be generated using the Glade user interface builder. However the source code for them (i.e. the modifiable glade project) seems to be missing from the source tarball. Sorry if I'm mistaken, I just couldn't find it there. I believe the generated files are not source code as defined by GPL (i.e. in preferred form of modification). Hence without distributing the Glade projects along with the files they cannot be distributed under the GPL. Furthermore, I believe this fails DFSG #2. Sami -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.26.3 (SMP w/4 CPU cores; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#420686: It's not obvious esniper is legal (violation of eBay ToS)
Package: esniper Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.3 [Cc:d to debian-legal] Hi, It's not obvious it is legal to distribute this software at all (probably it either is fit for main or unfit for non-free too). I suggest a review on debian-legal, since I'm not well versed in (at least this area of) law. I found nothing about this in debian-legal archives, so I assume it has not been discussed. 2.2.3 says Packages must be placed in _non-free_ if they are not compliant with the DFSG or are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their distribution problematic. (I expected to find something saying something about software that cannot be distributed at all, but apparently it's not there, and all the language in other sections seems very copyright and patent centric.) eBay TOS (or User Agreement in eBay terms) says[1]: _Access and Interference_ The Sites contains robot exclusion headers. Much of the information on the Sites is updated on a real-time basis and is proprietary or is licensed to eBay by our users or third parties. You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Sites for any purpose without our express written permission. Additionally, you agree that you will not: [...] - bypass our robot exclusion headers or other measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Sites. Sami [1] http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement.html -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.20.4-grsec-sli Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#420686: It's not obvious esniper is legal (violation of eBay ToS)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:38:34AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: How can it be illegal to distribute? Ebay User Agreements are not law and Debian is not bound to it. Well, I don't know the law too well, that's why I asked you (and if you feel it's legal, I'm happy about that). But some kind of contributory infringement came to my mind, since there arguably (if the contract is valid, and I think eBay is not a trivial case of EULA, I'd say it's rather obvious that there is a contract between the seller and eBay, but that's just my view) is no legal use for this program. Sami signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#420686: It's not obvious esniper is legal (violation of eBay ToS)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:55:15AM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote: I'd say it's rather obvious that there is a contract between the seller and eBay, but that's just my view) is no legal use for this program. Sorry, I meant the bidder and eBay. But now that's not as evident any more, I think. Whatever, I just wanted to see this discussed, because I think it's better to be safe than sorry. You are the experts, so I let you judge, I don't feel a big need to even play the devil's advocate :) Sami signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#420686: It's not obvious esniper is legal (violation of eBay ToS)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 10:17:22AM +0100, Dima Barsky wrote: I'm not a lawyer either, but if we start talking about contributory infringement, shouldn't we remove all P2P clients from Debian as well? There is a much stronger case for contributory infringement there.. I'm not convinced. Significant legal use for P2P exists. To clarify what I think about the ToS of a service like eBay, I think it's fundamentally different from something that tries to dictate how you may use static pages. It's a service, it doesn't make sense to say that eBay was published at some point in the time. And I'm not sure what else would give you the right to use the service than a contract. You contract them to auction your stuff, or (less clearly) to participate in an auction. It's more like software and less like something that's published. If (and that's a big if) that argumentation is valid, indeed there is no legal use for the software, and I think that probably would weigh quite a bit in court. Though I admit I don't even know if there's such a thing as contributory infringement of a contract, it sounds somehow weird. OTOH I don't think the attitude that if it's a web form, I can legally enter anything into it works very well either. I think it's somewhat analogous to having your car painted and then refusing to pay because I was just babbling (and please don't take this to imply that anyone in this list would have said something like that). Sami signature.asc Description: Digital signature
xpdf informal clarification
[Please maintain the Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], I'm not on this list] Hello, The copyright file (and the upstream[1]) of the package xpdf says the license is GPLv2, and: In order to cut down on the confusion a little bit, here are some informal clarifications: - I don't mind if you redistribute xpdf in source and/or binary form, as long as you include all of the documentation: README, man pages (or help files), and COPYING. (Note that the README file contains a pointer to a web page with the source code.) - Selling a CD-ROM that contains xpdf is fine with me, as long as it includes the documentation. I wouldn't mind receiving a sample copy, but it's not necessary. - If you make useful changes to xpdf, please make the source code available -- post it on a web site, email it to me, whatever. Of course it might be that the word informal makes these non-binding (and IIRC the author stated somewhere that he chose GPL so he could incorporate GPL code, so these as binding would probably make xpdf undistributable). However, if they are considered binding, it would seem that #1 and #2 would be non-free (requiring documentation to be distributed with the program). This might be a nonissue, just wanted to bring this to your attention since I didn't find this discussed before. Thanks _very much_ for your selfless work for the FLOSS community! Sami [1] http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/about.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Concerns about works created by the US government
[Please Cc: me when replying] Hello, Generally for free software (and most other purposes) it seems that works created by the US government are usually considered (sometimes effectively) to be in the public domain. I however have some concerns about this. The relevant US law says (title 17, chapter 1, § 105): Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. This certainly seems to make the works effectively PD in the US; however it almost seems as if that was carefully worded to _not_ place works in the PD, only to make the US government unable to enforce their copyright under the US law. What I think it does NOT do is forbid the US government from enforcing their copyright in any foreign jurisdiction. I think this is just about the only imaginable reason why the title does not say Any work of the US government is public domain instead. I think that for an international project this might be a problem, at least in theory. I agree that the Debian project possibly cannot take into account all laws in all countries; however I think this is potentially a major issue since it probably would affect any other country under the Berne convention. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though, and that's why I'm writing here :) Sami signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: reiser4 non-free?
[Sorry if I messed up the reply somehow, I wasn't subscribed and that made replying difficult. Now I am (to d-l). Couldn't these be archived somewhere in mbox format?] Hans Reiser wrote: It is the license for reiser4progs and not reiser4 in the kernel. At least the kernel patches in the Debian package kernel-patch-2.6-reiser4 state the license is the modified (clarified) GPL in the file linux/fs/reiser4/README. Sami
reiser4 non-free?
[Cc:'d to the reiser4progs maintainers. Please Cc: me when replying, I'm not subscribed to -legal.] There has previously been discussion at least in April 2003 on this list about the freeness of reiserfs. It seems a further clarification has been added to the license (GPL + clarifications) in both reiser4progs and kernel-patch-2.6-reiser4 since then. This is the section that has been modified: Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating a front end that hides my credits from the user or renaming mkreiser4 to mkyourcompanyfs or even just make_filesystem, without my permission, unless you are an end user not redistributing to others. If you have doubts about how to properly do that, or about what is fair, ask. (Last I spoke with him Richard was contemplating how best to address the fair crediting issue in the next GPL version.) New here is the such as by creating a front end that hides [...] or even just make_filesystem. The controversy last year was created by mkreiserfs printing an overly verbose (tens of lines of sponsor credits and other non-licensing information) advertisement when running from the command line and Mr. Reiser's assertion that removing it violates the GPL. To me, these new clarifications seem non-free. (IANADD, and I believe the other IANA* goes without saying. :-) Another section has been added after the above one: Also, a clustering file system built to work on top of this file system shall be considered a derivative work for the purposes of interpreting the GPL license granted herein. Plugins are also to be considered derivative works. Share code or pay money, we give you the choice. Surely a license cannot add anything to the set of derived works (if the other work is not derived, the license obviously doesn't apply to it and hence never gets to say it is derived; if it is, it is even without the license saying so). However I believe -legal has not considered text like this a problem before (I might be wrong though). Sami
