Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer

[Thibaut Paumard]

Hi,

Le 25/03/2015 18:30, Paul van der Vlis a écrit :

> 
>> They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively
>> licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but
>> it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the
>> code.
> 
> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and
> then redistribute.
> 

IMHO, a friendly request for a donation would be more effective and less
likely to get removed in a subsequent fork.

The scheme you are suggesting for this software implies that it is free
(as in speech) only because people have the ability to patch a certain
feature out (take the desert island test to see why:
https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest ). For practical reasons, I
would not want to have a package in Debian that people need to recompile
or pay or whatever other action to use. They get the binary on DVD, they
install it, they use it.

So, for me, free-as-speech implies free-as-in-beer. If it had to be
written in the Social Contract to be clear, I would vote for such an
amendment. I think that answers your initial question, at least as far
as I am concerned.

Kind regards, Thibaut.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Is it allowed to change license statement? [Was: Requesting sponsorship for Catalan Festival support]

[Thibaut Paumard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Le 25/05/2014 22:01, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> Hi Sergio, debian-legal
> 
> Sergio, sorry to annoy you (one last time I hope) with this
> license.
> 
> On 21-05-14 00:54, Sergio Oller wrote:
>> I have standarized to "Festvox". Given that the changes were 
>> formatting and a spelling mistake I have used the same text for
>> both.
> 
> I am surprised by the fact that you changed the text of the
> copyright statement as found in festvox/upc_ca_ona_hts.scm.

Sorry to bump in, but am I understanding this correctly that Sergio is
also upstream in this work? In this case, that's entirely his busyness
to change or reword the copyright statement and the license (as long
as his fellow upstream copyright holders agree, but that doesn't
concern us).

That should be done directly in the upstream tarball though, not just
in the debian/copyright file.

Kind regards, Thibaut.


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=juLX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
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/5382fb7b.1060...@debian.org

Re: Lintian privacy-breach-logo

[Thibaut Paumard]

Le 10/04/2014 13:40, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I'm packaging libpcl [1] and lintian show a message about privacy-breach-logo 
> and privacy-breach-generic.
> 
> About the privacy-breach-generic is clear, the documentation has a link to en 
> external webpage with a file. For instance:
> 
> usr/share/doc/libpcl-doc/html/a02296.html 
> www.pointclouds.org/documentation/overview/_images/range_image.jpg

Dear Leopold,

The image itself looks fine, but what we are missing is a license
statement about this file. Is it DFSG-free?

What I see at the bottom of the webpages is:
"Except where otherwise noted, the PointClouds.org web pages are
licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0."

Perhaps there is even already a copy of the file in the tarball, have
your checked?

Kind regards, Thibaut.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Lintian privacy-breach-logo

[Thibaut Paumard]

Le 10/04/2014 14:18, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> 
>> I'm packaging libpcl [1] and lintian show a message about privacy-breach-logo
>> and privacy-breach-generic.
> 
> This question is off-topic on debian-legal, please contact the
> debian-mentors list and include more information.

Hmmm... This is what lintian says:

"This package creates a potential privacy breach by fetching a logo at
runtime.

Before using a local copy you should check that the logo is suitable for
main. Ask debian-legal for advice."

Looks like this is on-topic.

Regards, Thibaut.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

[Thibaut Paumard]

Le 11/03/2014 20:10, Sam Kuper a écrit :
> My point was that if legal (in some jurisdictions) and literary
> discussions of abuse are completely excluded from Debian, then an act
> of censorship has been performed, which may itself be viewed as a real
> - though different - harm.

No.

Deciding to not include a copy of some "literary discussion" in a
GNU/Linux distribution is by no means censorship. Please keep in mind
what the Debian project is about.

Regards.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Unteralterbach visual novel

[Thibaut Paumard]

Hi,

Le 10/03/2014 21:12, Christoph Biedl a écrit :
> Paul Tagliamonte wrote...
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
>>> Thibaut Paumard wrote...
>>>
>>>> IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the
>>>> line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which
>>>> as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please
>>>> don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm not meaning you by 
>>>> "you"):
>>>
>>> There was a discussion about "hotbabe" some years ago ...
>>
>> Be careful here; in most Jurisdictions child porn is treated very
>> differently then normal porn (and rightly so).

Agreed too.

> Agreed. It was Thibaut who skipped the "child" word above and I
> understood this was by intention. Perhaps he hat something different
> in mind.

Yes, it was intentional. The FTP masters are of course the ones to
decide, but for the reasons I expressed later in my mail, I think even
legal (in most countries) pornography would put the distribution in a
difficult position.

I acknowledge I have no idea in how many countries this particular
package would be problematic once expunged from the child abuse graphic
content.

Kind regards, Thibaut.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Unteralterbach visual novel

[Thibaut Paumard]

Hi,

IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the
line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which
as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please
don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm not meaning you by "you"):

Le 10/03/2014 16:29, Walter Landry a écrit :
> Nils Dagsson Moskopp  wrote:
>> Bas Wijnen  writes:
> I am going to start with trying to package "Bernd und das Rätsel um 
> Unteralterbach" - a visual novel set in present-day bavaria containing 
> (optional) erotic content
>>>
>>> The erotic content is not optional, AFAICS.  Only the abuse is optional.
>>
>> As far as I understand it, in Germany, for a text / recording / drawing
>> to be a criminal matter, it must depict actual abuse – meaning a child
>> has to be abused for the document to be created. Off-topic: Does this
>> mean that the stereotypical hentai comics that commonly depict rape,
>> child abuse, dismemberment etc. are not legal to posess in NL as well?
>>
>> Quote: 
> 
> The US seems to be more strict.  A man was convicted in 2010 for
> sending Hentai comics through the mail.
> 
>   
> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.175488-Hentai-Collector-Sentenced-to-Jail-Over-Obscene-Material

[1]French Law is pretty strict on the matter too:
"Le fait, en vue de sa diffusion, de fixer, d'enregistrer ou de
transmettre l'image ou la représentation d'un mineur lorsque cette image
ou cette représentation présente un caractère pornographique est puni de
cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 75 000 euros d'amende."

The law speaks of "representation", meaning drawings are (presumably)
covered as well. I'm saying "presumably" because I haven't looked for
actual examples of application of this law to drawings, but the text is
pretty clear.

If the image depicts a child younger than 15, it's even illegal to draw
it, even if nobody else than you ever sees it. Of course, distributing
such images is as illegal as producing them. Interesting detail, the
jail sentence and the fine are worse if you use the Internet to
distribute the material.

Paedophilia prevention laws aside, if we started shipping any material
that could be *considered* pornographic in any jurisdiction, we would
have to take technical measures to prevent minors from accessing our
archive, or we would put ourselves, our mirrors and our users at risk of
prosecution for failing to protect minors from pornography.

I'm almost certain that pornography itself or at least pornography
importation is illegal in many countries, for very wide definitions of
"pornography". For instance it is [2]prohibited to import "indecent or
obscene articles" in the United Kingdom. I leave it to your
interpretation whether a Debian mirror would be performing such
importation if we had this game in the archive. Or someone casually
walking through the GB customs with a set of Debian DVDs in his luggage.

I think it is pretty obvious that we should not open that can of worms.

Kind regards, Thibaut.

[1]http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI06418095&cidTexte=LEGITEXT06070719

[2]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/39-40/36/contents




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

[Thibaut Paumard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Le 15/01/2013 14:41, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40)
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38)
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli
>>>>> (wintermute)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think that the effective licensing status of the
>>>>>>> binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly
>>>>>>> and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning
>>>>>>> of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the
>>>>>>> binary package long descriptions, as well.
>>> [...] Since currently there is no better place (at least, not
>>> one I am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am
>>> convinced that such considerations are important, I still think
>>> that the comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file
>>> and clarified.
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm surprised it has not yet been pointed out, but I have always 
>> considered the right place to document copyright information for 
>> individual binary packages is .copyright, which ends up
>> as simply /u/s/d//copyright.
>> 
>> I'm also surprised to not find it right away in either policy or 
>> devref. Anyway, man dh_installdocs at least doccuments the
>> technical point.
>> 
>> An additional README.Debian at least in the relevant -dev
>> packages does not harm.
> 

Hi again,

All I'm saying is that the natural place to look for such information
is the binary package's copyright file, a.k.a.
debian/, and that neither devref not Policy mention
the latter.

> In the past I saw that as an indication that indeed the copyright
> file was intended to cover both source and effective licensing.

Yes, that's also my reading of Policy 12.5:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile

"Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
information and distribution license in the file
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright."

In other words, copyright file (as distributed in the binary package)
must cover not only the copyright (which applies mostly on the source)
but also the distribution license (which applies on the binaries as
well). Note the *must* here in the binary package, in contrast with
*should* debian/copyright in the source package:

"A copy of the file which will be installed in
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the
source package."

which implicitly allows for debian/.copyright in relevant
cases, i.e. when the applicable license terms is not the same for all
the binaries, e.g. some binary linked with GPLed code.

> During my partitipation in defining the copyright file format 1.0,
>  however, it was brought up that there is no such requirement for 
> effective licensing - the current defined purpose of the copyright
> file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or
> _source_.

I'd be interested in the reasoning behind this, because I think you
where right in the first place.

In the first quote above, "its [...] distribution license" refers to
the "package". Very clearly, "package" here must be read as "binary
package", which you grab from a few lines later:
"/usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to another directory in
/usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come from the same source
and the first package Depends on the second."

Kind regards, Thibaut.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=+ZnX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
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/50f56787.4090...@debian.org

Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

[Thibaut Paumard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 
>> Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38)
>>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
> 
> I think that the effective licensing status of the binary
> packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and
> clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the
> debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package
> long descriptions, as well.
> [...] Since currently there is no better place (at least, not one I
> am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am convinced
> that such considerations are important, I still think that the
> comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file and clarified.

Hi,

I'm surprised it has not yet been pointed out, but I have always
considered the right place to document copyright information for
individual binary packages is .copyright, which ends up as
simply /u/s/d//copyright.

I'm also surprised to not find it right away in either policy or
devref. Anyway, man dh_installdocs at least doccuments the technical
point.

An additional README.Debian at least in the relevant -dev packages
does not harm.

Regards, thibaut.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ9IbKAAoJEJOUU0jg3ChATuoQAMCR2IMvkL0N3zuYajUOG7a8
6kn5yEr1x0EfP05qGRU4xVjGKV+Xsx/o2fN9zsOhRdNeVSeYjTuuyrzd/RwwGquP
FJq19UppiUxouOIcfP4tJ3KorjdlI7IyVZhtVBzd5czGO+PAnhisWVWvXC7kSP9a
HwpIFLtouksCBIaaUHLoO/jWELq3X8Nme8npLSrCiqAFNjpigxDkVyp6sl0JwlrC
opA7Rf64tc/0OBBgeh7azaYmK6ujoN5njuqCxavRzPE3duhblUeM4VBcxMk3LrTn
GXgRHfVnmF/hGhHhfnRtUjHN7obO7Q7q/iXgQv/cOn3XEnH8m4G28HwiX5JwLyBN
lIDpLtRzExI9Sc4dvvAolrqlg7x0GaA8w9/SkUu3guAhA4PvkmiFng5yekGs5DUi
5HafW94HSy2MrwOJc856T3ANGTPhspRkCzbIAK67nmz2TxPgLzUOUba9niot0bvw
eMHRMmW7GnL0OrgC8xtwt6/xNsEmPV5lwovJueR1EAFC3MdYyAmE0MdZbhQp8aYE
Pap4CIS3gH5vMKm0OofhvH2S0n2esLaJF3uBlmsrE/hocgUxYIYxDYwNd2Adxc2o
X5yS6fzkWRDv/YgrfhQOqln5dI0Lm/nm2HajjoHYMxmFo+KcQsGd8lQ/9B+2ljQ6
DQkNjaWHyHs5IUHcUYlv
=WhCJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
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/50f486d4.9090...@debian.org

Re: Bug#669016: RFS: gyoto/0.0.1-1 [ITP] -- general relativistic ray-tracing and orbit computation

[Thibaut Paumard]

Le 16/04/12 18:09, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
> In response to: bugs.debian.org/669016
> Software homepage mentioned below: http://gyoto.obspm.fr/
>
> Le 16/04/12 17:38, Etienne Millon a écrit :
>>
>>> We also request that Gyoto modifications, extensions or plug-ins 
>>> leading to a scientific publication be made public as free
>>> software reasonably fast (within one year after publication of
>>> the scientific paper), for instance by contributing it directly
>>> to the Gyoto code base. Contributors will be listed in the
>>> relevant source files as well as in the AUTHORS file in the
>>> package.
>> I also believe that it is not DFSG compliant, as it is not possible
>> to make gyoto plugins that are both leading to a publication and
>> for private (or commercial) use.
>>
>>

Besides, the fact that gyoto is  GPLed in itself forbids making
commercial plug-ins:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLAndPlugins

"Private" plug-ins is another matter.

Regards, Thibaut.



--
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/4f8c4b40.4050...@users.sourceforge.net

Re: Bug#669016: RFS: gyoto/0.0.1-1 [ITP] -- general relativistic ray-tracing and orbit computation

[Thibaut Paumard]

In response to: bugs.debian.org/669016
Software homepage mentioned below: http://gyoto.obspm.fr/

Le 16/04/12 17:38, Etienne Millon a écrit :
> Hello,
> 
> I just had a quick look at the website :
> 
>> We also request that Gyoto modifications, extensions or plug-ins 
>> leading to a scientific publication be made public as free
>> software reasonably fast (within one year after publication of
>> the scientific paper), for instance by contributing it directly
>> to the Gyoto code base. Contributors will be listed in the
>> relevant source files as well as in the AUTHORS file in the
>> package.
> 
> As this is a restriction on its use, this should go in 
> debian/copyright.
> 
> I also believe that it is not DFSG compliant, as it is not possible
> to make gyoto plugins that are both leading to a publication and
> for private (or commercial) use.
> 

Hi,

Thanks for your interest.

I'm actually upstream here too and I my intent is to remain fully
DFSG-compatible: this is a request, not a requirement. We don't intend
this sentence to be legally binding. We won't sue anybody for not
complying with this request, it's just that it's fair to do so.
"Request" here is the same word as used two lines above when we
request a citation if a paper is published based on Gyoto computations.

If this wording is not sufficiently clear, can you propose a clearer one?

I'm CC:-ing -legal to get other opinions.
Kind regards, Thibaut.


-- 
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/4f8c442a.6040...@users.sourceforge.net

Re: Share Scratch, but restrict the use of trademarks

[Thibaut Paumard]

Dear Amos,

Le 29/09/11 22:19, Amos Blanton a écrit :
> 
> I'm working on getting the rest of the Scratch Team to sign off on
> releasing Scratch 1.4 under the GPL v3. One roadblock that remains is
> that we feel it's important to prevent others from re-releasing modified
> versions of Scratch with our trademarks. We *do not* want to prevent
> maintainers or helpful contributors from fixing bugs or addressing
> security issues in the official Scratch package. And we're happy to see
> Scratch remixed as long as the remix isn't called Scratch, and doesn't
> use our logo or the Scratch Cat (this has been done many times already
>  under
> our current custom license).

IANAL, but I far as I understand, software license and trademark license
really are two distinct matters. You can GPL your software even if you
require any derived work to be rebranded. That would, however, force
Debian to rebrand Scratch right-away, which you probably don't want to
happen. It's also very important that you don't make exceptions for
Debian or whatever vendor: if you allow "us" to do something with your
software, you should allow our downstream as well.

For a sane workflow in Debian, we need to be allowed modifications such as:
  - bug fixes (including security);
  - moving files around for better integration;
  - adding documentation;
  - dynamic linking of libraries;
  - removing files or features which are not free according to the
Debian Free Software Guidelines or which are covered by enforced patents;
  - rarely, early integration of features which we hope will be accepted
upstream.

I think you should first clarify which modifications you are willing to
allow under the name "Scratch", and which modifications would require
re-branding. You can certainly then just put a file (README.trademark,
LICENSE.trademark?) in the source distribution which explains exactly
that. The exact content of this file can be discussed, so that in the
end you grant us and the rest of the world sufficient rights to work
with your package in a legal and sane manner, but not too much so as to,
in effect, loose the benefit of you trademark.

Best regards, Thibaut.


-- 
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/4e858101.40...@free.fr

Re: Inappropriate use of Debian logo.

[Thibaut Paumard]

Hi,

Le 30/11/10 23:46, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
> But copyright doesn't apply to independent invention, which he claims this
> is, and which seems fairly reasonable.  If he independently invented it we
> only have a trademark claim; if we don't have a trademark claim we have
> none.

IANAL, but as far as I know, a trademark doesn't need to be registered
to be enforceable: if you can prove that, due to the use of a logo
closely resembling ours, a customer could falsely believe that the
product sold is "Debian", and that this use of our unregistered
trademark is harmful to the customer and/or our business, we would have
a claim.

In this precise case:

  - the logo is blue, not red;

  - the company sells computer hardware and MS Windows, the word
"debian" is nowhere to be found on the site and linux is only mentionned
marginally.

Therefore, I don't believe that this use of "our" unregistered trademark
does any harm. Nobody in his right mind would imagine for more than a
second that this company is related to Debian. At least, I don't believe
that any court (in its right mind) would rule in our favor.

So we could sue the company for big money, big corporations would
perhaps do that, but actually suing a hardware reseller with such a
little claim would, in my opinion, do more harm to Debian than their
choice to use a blue swirl as a logo.

Best regards, Thibaut.


-- 
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/4cf5f64f.7010...@free.fr

Re: CMU LTI Licence

[Thibaut Paumard]

Hi,

I think it's mostly a (4-clause) BSD license, only the name of the  
institute has changed. The 5th clause is new, but redundant with the  
rest.


Le 22 janv. 10 à 11:49, Ben Finney a écrit :



##  5. Any commercial, public or published work that uses this  
data  ##
## must contain a clearly visible acknowledgment as to  
the   ##
## provenance of the  
data.   ##


I don't really know what this means. It clearly places a restriction  
on

a field of endeavour (“commercial, public or published work”), but I
don't know whether it violates DFSG §6. Other opinions required.


I don't think it is a restriction. It's simply stating a second time  
that the authors of the original work must be acknowledged and it  
specifies that this acknowledgement must be "clearly visible". That  
simply means that in our copyright file as well as any "About" dialog,  
you need to state that some data comes from the Carnegie Mellon  
University.


Regards, Thibaut.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Bug#565884: Please include CeCILL* licenses in common-licenses

[Thibaut Paumard]

Le 20 janv. 10 à 11:10, MJ Ray a écrit :


Thibaut Paumard suggested:

there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under
[1]CeCILL license in the archive. [...]
[1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html


Roughly how many packages/files are under the licence?


It turns out I've been too lazy checking yesterday, it's only 17  
packages in total (source packages, in main. That's a few more binary  
packages, and perhaps one in contrib, not clear).


CeCILL v1.1: 4
CeCILL V2.0: 9
CeCILL-B: 2
CeCILL-C: 2 (+3 I'm working on)


CeCILL Article 5.3.4 states "The Licensee can include a code that is
subject to the provisions of one of the versions of the GNU GPL in the
Modified or unmodified Software, and distribute that entire code under
the terms of the same version of the GNU GPL."

So, if the debian dir is under the GPL, the entire package could be
distributed under the GPL and CeCILL wouldn't be its copyright and
distribution license.  I don't remember and policy manual section 12.5
doesn't seem explicit on this: would that mean we don't need to
include the CeCILL text in the package?


For CeCILL-2, perhaps. CeCILL-C is LGPL compatible but does not  
include such a clause.


Regards, Thibaut.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#565884: Please include CeCILL* licenses in common-licenses

[Thibaut Paumard]

Package: base-files
Version: 5.0.0
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under [1]CeCILL license 
in the archive. The CeCILL licenses are wordy and the project would benefit 
from having them in /usr/share/common-licenses.

[1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html

Best regards, Thibaut.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii  base-passwd   3.5.22 Debian base system master password
ii  gawk [awk]1:3.1.6.dfsg-4 GNU awk, a pattern scanning and pr
ii  mawk [awk]1.3.3-15   a pattern scanning and text proces

base-files recommends no packages.

base-files suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

GPL compatibility with other licenses

[Thibaut Paumard]

Hi,

I'm working on a new package, dpuser (ITP: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi- 
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472961).


It is mostly GPL-2, but contains bits and pieces of various freely  
available software. I would like to make sure dpuser is distributable.


Most licenses look DFSG-free to me, except the license for pgplot,  
which is currently in non-free (so I believe dpuser would have to go  
in non-free as well). IRAF used to be in contrib, although I can't  
make out why in was not in main.


The fundamental problem with PGPLOT (the most problematic of these  
licenses is this:
PGPLOT is not public-domain software. However, it is freely  
available for non-commercial use.


I provide links to the licenses below and attach a cut-down version  
of the debian/copyright file, with only the non-standard licenses:

 - SFL:http://legacy.imatix.com/html/sfl/sfl4.htm
 - Qwt:http://qwt.sourceforge.net/qwtlicense.html
 - IRAF:not available online, see attachement
 - zlib:   http://desktop.google.com/en/copyrights.html#zlib
 - f2c:http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/f2c/ 
f2c_20050501-1/f2c.copyright

 - pgplot: http://nova.umuc.edu/~black/pgpcw.html

Thanks in advance for any advice,
Regards, Thibaut.


copyright
Description: Binary data


--
Dr Thibaut Paumard   | LESIA/CNRS - B. Lyot (n°6)
Tel: +33 1 45 07 75 45   | Observatoire de Paris - Section de Meudon
Fax: +33 1 45 07 79 17   | 5, Place Jules Janssen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 92195 MEUDON CEDEX (France)






smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

inaccurate upstream copyright notice

[Thibaut Paumard]

Dear legal aware folks,

I have recently adopted [1]gimp-gap. While reviewing it, I noticed  
that the copyright notice written on almost every file is inaccurate.  
It reads


 THE GIMP -- an image manipulation program
 Copyright (C) 1995 Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis.

 

Everything in there looks wrong:
 - the software is gimp-gap, a plug-in for GIMP, not GIMP itself;
 - the changelog spans 2002—2008;
 - the authors are not those listed above.

I sent a e-mail to one of the authors raising my concerns and asking  
him to clarify the copyright, in particular the copyright holder (is  
their intent to yield their copyright to the orignal GIMP authors?)


He answered basically that the license itself is clearly stated  
(which is true), and that since it is GPL, the copyright is  
unimportant and I shouldn't care.


Now, should I? If yes, could you give me a couple of arguments I  
could use to convince the authors to do something about it?


[1] http://packages.debian.org/sid/gimp-gap

Best regards, Thibaut.



PGP.sig
Description: Ceci est une signature électronique PGP