Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only for the purpose of creating compatible implementations. http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp If you modified an application which implements PDF so that it was incompatible with Adobe's specifications, you might be outside the scope of Adobe's patent license grant. That's interesting to know - though I don't intend to read the patents themselves. Presumably you are not suggesting that programs that manipulate PDF files are non-free just because you can infringe a US patent by modifying them. Are you suggesting we should avoid using PDFs? By the way, is ReportLab (a python toolkit for generating PDFs) free software? Their website seems not to be working at present.
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only for the purpose of creating compatible implementations. http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp If you modified an application which implements PDF so that it was incompatible with Adobe's specifications, you might be outside the scope of Adobe's patent license grant. It should be noted that while this is unpleasant, it doesn't impact the free-software nature of xpdf, as long as the license doesn't attempt to incorporate the patent restrictions into itself.
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
David B Harris writes: However, I'm not one who believes that just because a file format only has non-Free editor implementations that the file format itself is non-Free. There are many ways one can edit PDFs with Free tools, but this is beside the point for me. It's not (to my knowledge) patent-encumbered, and Adobe hasn't (to my knowledge) attempted to stop anybody who has written those tools that manipulate PDFs. Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only for the purpose of creating compatible implementations. http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp If you modified an application which implements PDF so that it was incompatible with Adobe's specifications, you might be outside the scope of Adobe's patent license grant. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Very frankly, I am opposed to people http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | being programmed by others. http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | -- Fred Rogers (1928-2003), |464 U.S. 417, 445 (1984)
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 07:40:43AM -0400, David B Harris wrote: If I develop a really spiffy document format for, say, a braille machine, document it thoroughly and publish it, and either don't take any patents out of it, or file one of those strictly-prior-art-to-stop-somebody-else-from-patenting-it patents, but my own implementation of the tools are non-Free, I don't want the file format itself to be considered non-Free. The ability to create a Free editor exists. No licensing fees, no patent battles, nothing. Agreed. Which is why my WDL defines Transparent formats in that way :-) Rg, Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal) -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpUQXzkUzAo6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal) I just thought it was far too long. I think that about most new licenses :( Richard Braakman
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:40:43 -0400, David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:03 -0500 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms? Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion). As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a point. There are a number of tools that convert PDF into a more workable format, and an equal number of tools which can convert to PDF. I use pdf2ps and ps2pdf, myself. (Note here that in the case of my resume, PDF was at one time my source format. I used these tools :) Quite. But the discussion about editing PDF _directly_ -- if you convert PDF to another format to edit, and convert back to PDF, the preferred form for editing is the other format; the preferred form for storage and transmission may be PDF. However, I'm not one who believes that just because a file format only has non-Free editor implementations that the file format itself is non-Free. There are many ways one can edit PDFs with Free tools, but this is beside the point for me. It's not (to my knowledge) patent-encumbered, and Adobe hasn't (to my knowledge) attempted to stop anybody who has written those tools that manipulate PDFs. I see your point. Oh, off topic, I'd appreciate it if you could point these tools out to me (off list, please), most of my attempts to convert back and forth have resulted in loss of information/formatting. manoj -- Ask five economists and you'll get five different explanations (six if one went to Harvard). Edgar R. Fiedler Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal) I just thought it was far too long. I think that about most new licenses :( I won't deny it's long. However, as it's based on the FDL (which I assume many people on this list know quite well already), I suspect an analysis should be shorter than the analysis of another license of approximately the same length. Even if you don't feel like reading everything, just skimming over it, and saying whether or not you think it's a good idea would be very much appreciated. To date, I've had 2 off-list replies for something which took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually prepare. That's quite discouraging. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpv7fkQUuHFc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually prepare. That's quite discouraging. It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead of inline and in a charset that I don't use. I didn't detach it yet. I have no idea why you made it so difficult for people to read it. Misbehaving email client? Seeing as you're so unhappy, I'll go back now, decode it and read it through, but I suspect that's why some didn't bother.
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually prepare. That's quite discouraging. It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead of inline and in a charset that I don't use. Right. Got it. I didn't detach it yet. I have no idea why you made it so difficult for people to read it. Misbehaving email client? Sent it using evolution; yes, it was probably misbehaving. Seeing as you're so unhappy, I'll go back now, decode it and read it through, but I suspect that's why some didn't bother. Hm. I've put them up on http://www.grep.be/wdl/wdl.txt and http://www.grep.be/wdl/wdl-fdl-differences.txt Thanks. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpm450Ok9qBB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually prepare. That's quite discouraging. It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead of inline and in a charset that I don't use. I didn't detach it yet. I have no idea why you made it so difficult for people to read it. Misbehaving email client? I didn't notice. I guess MH-E does a good job displaying stuff. Cool. :-) -- Peter S. Galbraith, MH-E developer
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This license is from the Creative Commons at http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.) What do you think: DFSG free? It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for editing.
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This license is from the Creative Commons at http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.) What do you think: DFSG free? It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for editing. Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms? Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion). pgpZ5oHFVFYC8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:58:36 -0400, David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This license is from the Creative Commons at http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.) What do you think: DFSG free? It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for editing. Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms? Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion). As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a point. manoj -- May all your PUSHes be POPped. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for editing. Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms? Not really. The license simply doesn't say anything about availability of editable (source) files. Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion). Including changes which rearrange page breaks? 8-) (There is proprietary software to do this, I believe, at least for newspaper-style column breaks.)
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:58:36 -0400, David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This license is from the Creative Commons at http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.) What do you think: DFSG free? It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for editing. Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms? Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion). As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a point. Emacs. Vim. PDF files *are*, to some extent, editable as text. You probably won't enjoy the experience, but they're not any worse than most machine-generated postscript. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a point. Umm, vi foo.pdf usually works fine. PDF is just plaintext (unless it uses encryption). Okay, it's not very human readable, but you CAN write it by hand if you want to. Stephen
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 07:04:43PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a point. Umm, vi foo.pdf usually works fine. PDF is just plaintext (unless it uses encryption). Okay, it's not very human readable, but you CAN write it by hand if you want to. Assuming it's text at all. Lots of pdfs are mostly embedded images. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp4SeMMeWHhq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:04:43 +0100, Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a point. Umm, vi foo.pdf usually works fine. I see. About as well as decompiling and editing the assmbly for binaries, then, for most PDF's I deal with. PDF is just plaintext (unless it uses encryption). Okay, it's not very human readable, but you CAN write it by hand if you want to. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 42 0 obj^M ^M/Linearized 1 ^M/O 45 ^M/H [ 958 344 ] ^M/L 41261 ^M/E 6963 ^M/N 10 ^M/T 40303 ^M ^Mendobj^M xref^M42 18 ^M16 0 n^M @ @ @ @ @ @ That is what I get with vim N-400_no_fill.pdf, the US governments naturalization pdf. I think saying PDF is editable by vim is stretching things a tad. manoj -- Brain? Brain? What is 'brain'? Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:04:48PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: If I were to try my own hand as an apprentice in the fine art of debian-legal license analysis, I might say the following grin: [...] Looks good, but don't forget that that is only phase one. Phase two involves a holistic reading of the entire license to make sure that it isn't non-Free despite its failure to run afoul of a specific clause of the DFSG. Remeber, the DFSG is just a list of *guidelines*. There are ways to inhibit freedom that the DFSG did not anticipate. Our Social Contract requires us to defend Free Software (Free as in freedom), not merely to ensure that we don't ship anything that doesn't fail the specific criteria in the DFSG. I know I've made this point a lot in the past few months, but I feel it bears repeating. -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpso4y5wXH4B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PDF is just plaintext (unless it uses encryption). Or compression. There are mostly plain-text PDF files, but they are quite unusual.
Attribution-ShareAlike License
Hello, This license is from the Creative Commons at http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.) What do you think: DFSG free? - non-binding summary -- [ this would not normally be distributed with a package; I included it here just for reference. -- jgoerzen ] Creative Commons Deed Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 You are free: * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work * to make derivative works * to make commercial use of the work Under the following conditions: Attribution. You must give the original author credit. Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author. Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above. This is a human-readable summary of the [2]Legal Code (the full license). - legally binding license terms -- Creative Commons Legal Code Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DRAFT LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN AS-IS BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE. License THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE (CCPL OR LICENSE). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE IS PROHIBITED. BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 1. Definitions a. Collective Work means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License. b. Derivative Work means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. c. Licensor means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this License. d. Original Author means the individual or entity who created the Work. e. Work means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License. f. You means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation. 2. Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws. 3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: a. to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works; b. to create and reproduce Derivative Works; c. to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works; d. to distribute copies
Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License
If I were to try my own hand as an apprentice in the fine art of debian-legal license analysis, I might say the following grin: DFSG 1: Free Redistribution Section 3c gives the right to use it in a collective work. DFSG 2: Source Code Not specifically addressed here (at least in terms of preferred form for modification). I guess we would have to look at each work licensed under this license individually to see if it includes something that we would deem as source. It seems rather BSDish in that a person that receives it would be free to distribute it without source. DFSG 3: Derived works 3b provides this, and 4b develops it. 8a provides the relicensing aspect. DFSG 4: not applicable (no restriction on source code is being made) DFSG 5, 6: No discrimination There is no clause about commercial restrictions or any such thing. DFSG 7: Distribution of license 8a meets this DFSG 8: Not specific to Debian Clearly this is fine here :-) DFSG 9: Software contamination Wording is fairly clear that the license of an individual document does not hinder a collective work.
