Death of a copyright holders (was: [debian-vote] Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
I stumbled over this statement in an email from the KDE team to -vote: For the record, relicensing most of our documentation will be impossible. There are several people with stated objections to using the GPL for documentation, many people we have no way of contacting, and a couple who are no longer alive, which makes them fairly difficult to contact. I am curious: what happens to his/her copyrights when a person dies, specifically wrt licence choice. Do people just assume that the deceased didn't ever want to change the licence? Sorry for the black topic. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! ... and so he killed Miguel in a rit of fealous jage. -- inspector clouseau signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
a legal problem with 'filters' in germany
Dear all, please refer to #277794. One single line needs to be erased from the package because otherwise, the package is unconstitutional in Germany (and Austria). I consulted a lawyer about this. She says that *theoretically*, a German mirror operator could get jail-time for this. No accusation means no punishment, but it would be possible. Joey Hess is refusing to do anything about it. Please advise. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: a legal problem with 'filters' in germany
also sprach Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.22.1943 +0200]: I don't think Germany's laws about how to properly cover up history can possibly make software non-free. I don't think it's a proper way to cover up history anyway. I sympathize with the situation of German mirror-operators and developers, but it's not so much a matter of law as policy whether Debian will remove software from its archive to make some nations happy. If we do that, why not remove crypto for France and tunneling software for China and Emacs for the USA? Well, we did have an entire non-US archive for the longest time. I am not sure what the situation is in other countries, but is it actually illegal to distribute certain software, or just illegal to use it? PS: What's this about emacs and the US anyway? -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
also sprach Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.04.1908 +0200]: How many packages depend on this library? These should be moved to contrib, and if they're not many you could consider removing libcwd along with them, too. Consider removing it? Why? Anyway, I doubt there is a single package that depends on libcwd. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
also sprach Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.04.1926 +0200]: We provide non-free packages when our users require them (Social Contract). If there's no demand for libcwd there's no reason to provide it. This is you as the maintainer who should judge that. I need the package myself. I think it's specialy appropiate to take this in consideration for a library that has no reverse dependencies. Right. So how do I reach out to the 17 users popcon lists? Of course, maybe we should just wait for a response from upstream and see if they want to re-license :). Unlikely. But you never know. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
also sprach Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.04.1934 +0200]: Anyway, as a sidenote I encourage you to find an alternative if the licensing problem cannot be solved. Sure. I doubt there is one though. Then again, I am likely not going to need all the functionality. So yes, maybe I'll just drop it alltogether. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
Carlo, I am sorry to inform you that I have decided to move libcwd to Debian's non-free archive, where it will enjoy less support. The debian-legal team has deemed the QPL to be not DFSG-free, and even though I completely understand and subscribe to your rationale, I am not capable of sustaining it in main any longer. You will find additional information on our Wiki: http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences Should you ever decide to change the libcwd licence, or to dual-licence it (must not be Debian-specific), then I will gladly move the library back to the main archive. Cheers, -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: remove this package from another developer (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.07.12.1409 +0200]: IIRC, Martin mentioned this the last time you asked about delegations, too. Thanks Colin. I would appreciate if this issue was left to myself. I am working with the author through the problems and hope to get libcwd freed. I just can't stand when people get into a discussion without having read everything and think they need to take immediate action. No, Branden, it's not you whom I'm talking about. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main
tags 251983 + wontfix moreinfo thanks also sprach Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.07.09.2243 +0200]: Please remove libcwd from main and put it in non-free. I will request removal of this package if you do not. As long as there is no official statement on the QPL, I will not move this package to non-free. Please check http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences and provide the appropriate information needed to settle the issue. Also make sure to read the entire bug thread carefully and note where the author would be willing to compromise. Currently, the QPL is assumed to be DFSG-compatible though not favourable. Until I hear a majority of votes that this is not the case, I will not take any steps and I will vigorously oppose any requests to remove it from main. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.
severity 258497 wishlist tags 258497 + moreinfo thanks also sprach Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.07.09.2322 +0200]: debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses to move this package to non-free; You are misrepresenting. I was not convinced by the debian-legal thread and I don't have the time to go through it again. Thus, until you read all the relevant information and give some valuable input, I ask you to please stop trolling. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main
debian-legal, I am CC'ing y'all for hope of valuable input. Please refer to http://bugs.debian.org/251983 for a history of this discussion. It's about the QPL, specifically term 6c. and the choice of legal venue, which Nathanael claims to be in contradiction with the DFSG, but which has never really been settled. The bugreport contains links to previous discussion. also sprach Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.06.01.1951 +0200]: The choice of law is my choice and not of the person who doesn't follow the rules of the license. I am convinced that the choice of law has no influence on the *intend* of the license and as such cannot cause a license to fail the DFSG - which only describes what the intend of a license is (it is written in a general way). i am also not clear on that. I don't think the DFSG denies a choice of legal venue. nevertheless, is it needed? imagine John Doe copies your software, modifies it, and screws the licence. you can do one of two things: prosecute john in his country, or prosecute john in your country. the former's a pain and not possible due to financial issues. the latter is what you'll do. now, whether the licence states that your hometown is the chosen legal venue or not does not make a difference to john doe. if john's country shields him or does not cooperate in handing him over to face the charges, then there's nothing you can do. john already violated your licence. he'll laugh at you if you insist on the legal venue choice. the only time when such a choice of legal venue is relevant is when someone chooses to prosecute you. but he can't, because the licence exempts you from any liability. thus, no matter where there's a prosecution, it's invalid because of terms in the licence. Since http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php contains a rationale for each guideline, I prefer to use that document as a base of this discussion. Yes, I think that is possible. I might not be a lawyer, but I don't need to be. This has been investigated before already for us. As you can read on http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ (left column) the QPL is an approved OSI license, which means it satisfies the definition given on http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. DFSG is more restrictive than OSI, from what i understand. Maybe the folks from debian legal can offer a concise comparison. The pressure put upon me to change the license of libcwd is driven by either personal favours or misunderstandings. There is no need to change it as it satisfies the DFSG. Unless your lawyers prove otherwise and an explicit note on the debian website is made that the QPL does NOT satisfy the DFSG I advise you to take no action and keep things as the are. carlo, i am on your side. but let's try to get this settled once and for all. let's get the QPL to be called DFSG-free-but-not-favourable. from being modified.' -- So, what happens is an encouragement Martin, but they cannot force you to remove libcwd from debian (at least, not based on these guidelines - which are just that anyway - guidelines.) note my initial reply to the bug... Yes, but the social contract states that people may derive from it all that they want. We don't put limitations on the derived works. It could be closed or open, modified or not. What a nonsense - not even the GPL allows closed derived works. Many licenses are DFSG-free and not GPL. I personally dislike the GPL for its viral feel. mr. balmer wasn't too wrong, but he didn't refer to GNU, he referred to linux as a whole. i release all my work under the artistic licence, or the do-as-you-damned-well-please licence, or an attribution licence. afaict, all these allow closed derivation. yet, they are all dfsg-free. the point is: the licence can put limitations on the software to a certain degree. debian never increases these limitations, at least not for dfsg-free licences. I agree, though it's not going to be easy. Say I screwed the licence. What are you going to do now? An international suit? You and me would know the law would be on my side. But if 'I' was someone malicious? Or if I would actually turn against you and you'd find out that I just pretended to be on your side? (don't worry... purely hypothetical) We'd exchange some emails and things would be settled out of court without travel or lawyer expenses. What we need is clarity in the license - I am not anticipating on dealing with people who willingly screw the license and laugh at me in my face. so what are you anticipating? I trust that debian will still include libcwd. i hope so too. i really like it. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
The QPL licence
Sorry, this should have gone to -legal straight, not first to -devel. Please CC me on replies! I would like to package a software released under the QPL licence: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/libcwd/libcwd/LICENSE.QPL?rev=1.1 It *seems* that the QPL is DFSG-free, but I would like to have confirming voices. It disallows the source code to be distributed in modified form, but allows the packaging of patches alongside for modification at build-time. Thus, I think paragraph 4 of the DFSG makes this package packageable. I am trying to convince the author to change the licence, but if I don't succeed... can I package libcwd for Debian? Thanks, -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The QPL licence
It'd be nice if this license would go away. I'd recommend the same thing that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the upstream authors to dual license under the GPL, just like Trolltech did. I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants there to be one libcwd, and only one libcwd, and no competition from projects building up on years of his work. I can completely understand this line of reasoning, and I find it hard to argue against that. If you have convincing arguments, share them with me (or just post them here, I sent the thread link to the author). You and I, we agree that the QPL should go away and be replaced by a truly free licence. However, unless we find a licence that accomodates DFSG-freeness and the author's wish for legal protection against forks, it's going to be hard. I have proposed to him to consider creating a license of his own, which would basically allow everything except the incoporation of the code into another project with the same goals as libcwd. We'll see what comes. In the mean time, I appreciate your time and effort. Thanks for any forthcoming (and previous) suggestions and thoughts! -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: is this DFSG?
also sprach Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.09.24.2247 +0200]: Mostly though sloppy writing, I think. If the intention was something like: i understand. it has been changed to pure GPL v2. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] information superhighway is just an anagram for i'm on a huge wispy rhino fart. pgpW6e0wyFbiZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
is this DFSG?
[please CC me on replies] Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify, or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may not. 1. http://www.debian.org/social_contract/ This is kinda meta-DFSG and kinda not. it has me confused. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] i no longer need to punish, deceive or compromise myself. unless, of course, i want to stay employed. pgpEBugiH40j5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: is this DFSG?
also sprach Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.09.22.1632 +0200]: Please contact the author to change that. DFSG is not a license, but a set of conditions a license should meet so that the program distributed with such license can be part of Debian. I am the author ;^ You can't license code under the DFSG. You can do it under GPL, BSD, or put the code under into public domain. So it's not okay? I'll simply GPL it then. But DFSG is more than GPL, even though it's not a license, right? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] and if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear you shout and no one seems to hear and if the band you're in starts playing different tunes i'll see you on the dark side of the moon. -- pink floyd, 1972 pgpztsDAqtWSH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: is this DFSG?
also sprach Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.09.22.1734 +0200]: I concur with Santiago on this. Alright, I give in. It has been changed. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] my other computer is your windows box. pgpFOi5ztGpYA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux gpl question
also sprach John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]: However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all. I'm really wondering why you even bothered to point this out. You restate my point rather complicatedly and mostly wrongly, then added a huge assed dose of the obvious. Why? chill hey! gosh, legal issues always make people so belligerent ;^! this is, after all, not always straight forward as in the books. in fact, i claim to have understood most of the license, and your explanations, and i am still confused in certain cases. granted, this one is answered rather easily (now that i know what to consider and where to look), but i still appreciate any form of feedback within the reasonable bounds and as long as nobody purposely acts childish or stupidly. this ain't no offense, john. BTW, he is only required to provide the GPL'd stuff when asked: there is no law, clause, or any other thing on God's green earth that is forcing him to give up his rights of authorship in code he wrote (gee, does it sound like I'm repeating myself?). you still have a wonderful way of explaining, quite understandable, i find... Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. on purpose? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] dimmi in 10 secondi i nomi dei 7 re di roma, in ordine decrescente di data di morte del figlio secondogenito, in rot13... o faccio fuori la directory /dev !!! pgptb9UyGL1l3.pgp Description: PGP signature
linux gpl question
[please cc me on responses] hey wise people, i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the kernel here and there, and because he added userland stuff. now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches for the kernel, right? in this case, does he have to let people know exactly which patches are applied? or, can he simply make the kernel source available, but ship it in binary only form with his patches applied? i'd love to hear your thoughts... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] windoze 3.1 - the best $89 solitaire game you can buy. pgpKedDRcFPyF.pgp Description: PGP signature
