Re: DFSG as Licence?
Michelle Konzack wrote: I was thinking to use the term: Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). I am thinking, that this makes my standpoint more clear as telling users: This software is under GPL vXX. I fully aggree with the Debian philosophy and this is why I stay with it (even if it steals me sometimes th last nerv ;-) ) What do you think about it? IMO, there is something wrong with your statement. The point is that it's very difficult to determine whether a license complies with DFSG. Suppose that someone created a new license which is against DFSG, but s/he can still disclaim it complies with DFSG. You cannot decide that hir license is against the DFSG, nor do the Debian community. If the Debian community say a license is against DFSG, they only express their opinion. And according to their opinion, they won't add any software solely under this license to Debian main. That's what they can do. But they cannot enforce other people to agree with their opinion, nor can they enforce others to obey their decision. Everyone may have their different opinions, the Debian community never want to impose their opinion on others. The decision made by the Debian community only applies to the Debian Project. Even if you take this matter to court, since the DFSG is a publicly stated policy, rather than a legal statement, the case will become very complex. Therefore, IMO, you should not use a statement like any Licence which complay with the DFSG. The licenses below are currently found in Debian main: GNU General Public License (common) GNU Lesser General Public License (common) GNU Library General Public License (common) Modified BSD License (common) Perl Artistic license (common) Apache License MIT/X11-style licenses zlib-style licenses LaTeX Project Public License Python Software Foundation License Ruby's License PHP License W3C Software Notice and License OpenSSL License Sleepycat License Common UNIX Printing System License Agreement vhf Public License No problem Bugroff license You can choose one or more license from them. (Personally, I think use Modified BSD is enough, because it is compatible with many licenses listed above.) If someone want to use other licenses which is not compatible with any license listed above to distribute your software, the license probably doesn't comply with the DFSG. Of course, it is possible that the license they want to use does comply with the DFSG. However, I think few people will need to use such licenses. If they do, they always can ask for your permission. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:36:40 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote: [...] I was thinking to use the term: Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). [...] What do you think about it? There are some major problems with such a mutant license. First of all, and most importantly, who is going to decide whether a particular license complies with the DFSG? For the purpose of inclusion of a work into Debian, this task is accomplished by the packager, possibly with the help of debian-legal as an advisory group, and ultimately by the ftp-masters (whose decisions could be overruled by the Debian Project as a whole via GR)[1]. [1] anyone more knowledgeable than me about Debian Constitution and Debian Policy is encouraged to correct me, if I'm wrong... But who is going to decide whether a particular license complies with DFSG for the purpose of complying with your mutant license? What if I do something with your work and you sue me for copyright infringement? I claim that I was doing something allowed by license XYZ which I think complies with the DFSG. You claim that license XYZ does not comply with the DFSG. A court has to decide who is right and who is wrong, but no court is used to determine whether a license complies with the DFSG. Second, it's not very clear what complying with the DFSG means for a *license*. The DFSG are guidelines to determine if a *work* is or isn't Free Software (according to Debian standards). The license plays an important role in making a work Free, but it's not the only thing to be taken into account (availability of source code, actively enforced patents, and other details are to be considered too). Third, your mutant license is a contorted way to more or less effectively release a work under in a all-permissive manner. Let's see why: the DFSG never pose upper limits to granted permissions, they only pose lower limits. Hence a license permissive enough complies with the DFSG for sure. I, as a licensee, would obviously choose the most permissive license I can, among a set of proposed ones. I could for example choose the Expat license[2] (or even some more permissive one): it definitely complies with the DFSG (I think there are no reasonable doubts about it). See? At the end of the day, the result of your mutant license is basically the same as having released the work under the Expat license[2]. [2] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt So, to summarize, I recommend you against adopting your proposed mutant license. I suggest you instead release your works in a clearly DFSG-free manner by adopting a suitable license. If you want to be (almost) all-permissive, a good choice is the Expat license: it's simple, short, and compatible with everything else. HTH, IANAL, IANADD. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgptwX5oJNwhz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG as Licence?
Hello Ben and *, sorry for the late reponse, but I was in Palestine and have gotten trouble with the Israelian Authority... (They give bullschit on Diplomatic immunity!) Am 2006-06-12 17:37:16, schrieb Ben Finney: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. That's great, it makes the free software community stronger and makes your work useful to more people. Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? The DFSG doesn't specify license terms. It's a set of guidelines for judging the freedoms granted to recipients of a work. This judgement concerns not just the license from copyright, or patent, or trademark, or any other particular monopolies. Rather, it addresses the combined set of effective freedoms granted to the recipient of the work. Thus, it wouldn't make much sense to treat the DFSG as a license. I was thinking to use the term: Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). I am thinking, that this makes my standpoint more clear as telling users: This software is under GPL vXX. I fully aggree with the Debian philosophy and this is why I stay with it (even if it steals me sometimes th last nerv ;-) ) What do you think about it? Greetings Michelle Konzack -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GNU GPL future (was: Re: DFSG as Licence?)
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has concerns to make them known now. The draft you've read is *not* what the final GPL v3 will look like, and if you make your concerns known to the FSF now, they can take that into consideration for the final text of the license. URL:http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/ It's not rational to say that you don't want to use GPL v3 based on a draft; there's no GPL v3 yet. The whole point of that draft is to solicit feedback on potential problems so they can be fixed *before* anyone uses GPL v3. -- \ As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we | `\ should be glad to serve others by any invention of ours. -- | _o__)Benjamin Franklin | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. It's good that you're reading existing copyright licenses; it's better to choose a license already accepted by the community as granting effective freedom to users, than to try writing your own. As for which license to choose, it depends on your goals for the license. The FSF have useful comments on many existing free software licenses, and offer to help evaluating licenses. URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. That's great, it makes the free software community stronger and makes your work useful to more people. Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? The DFSG doesn't specify license terms. It's a set of guidelines for judging the freedoms granted to recipients of a work. This judgement concerns not just the license from copyright, or patent, or trademark, or any other particular monopolies. Rather, it addresses the combined set of effective freedoms granted to the recipient of the work. Thus, it wouldn't make much sense to treat the DFSG as a license. -- \I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park | `\ anywhere near the place. -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU GPL future (was: Re: DFSG as Licence?)
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has concerns to make them known now. [...] Unfortunately, to make them known, you have to jump through hoops of being able to use their anybrowser-busting web system, persuade their reject-all email robot or travel hundreds of miles at a few days notice to public conferences. I'm pretty stubborn, but I've not been able to overcome these problems. How many hackers will have given up trying to talk to FSF about this? Commenting should have been made more easy. I guess it's good that at least some people can comment on this and be heard, which is a step forward from what appeared to happen over FDL. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU GPL future (was: Re: DFSG as Licence?)
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, MJ Ray wrote: Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has concerns to make them known now. [...] Unfortunately, to make them known, you have to jump through hoops of being able to use their anybrowser-busting web system, persuade their reject-all email robot or travel hundreds of miles at a few days notice to public conferences. I'm pretty stubborn, but I've not been able to overcome these problems. You've mentioned this on multiple occasions; my offer to populate the comment system with any comments that you are unable to make via it still stands. [I extend this offer to anyone else who is incapable of operating the comment system. I think your comments are important, and I'm willing to help you get them in.] Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, Chew more! Do more! The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG as Licence?
On Sunday 11 June 2006 20:31, Måns Rullgård wrote: --cut-- What I'm talking about is different, each on their own free, licenses being deemed incompatible with each other. Examples are the GPL, the OpenSSL license, and the Open Software License. I find it hard to believe that most authors who choose to release under the GPL do so in order to prevent their code being used in a program released under the OSL. Neither of these two licenses (GPL and OSL) allows for proprieterization of code. However, I see it as a loss to the free software world as a whole, that the open source code is divided into several islands, between which no code sharing is allowed. This leads to time and efforts being wasted in reimplementing perfectly good code, only because the existing version has slightly different terms of use and distribution. Right, but you are describing relationships as found in an Ideal World ;-) It always happens so that if you manage to merge some of these islands, then no force could (and should) prevent anyone from building its own brand new island following its own ideas and visions even thay are not in perfect harmony with other already existing islands. This is generally not so Bad Thing[TM] and is how the holy human nature works, at least on the Earth ;-) -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU GPL future (was: Re: DFSG as Licence?)
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] You've mentioned this on multiple occasions; my offer to populate the comment system with any comments that you are unable to make via it still stands. Thank you. I don't recall that. I had hoped FSF would actually fix their bad processes to give equal opportunity in their consultation, but as time pushes on, I'll probably take up your offer. [I extend this offer to anyone else who is incapable of operating the comment system. [...] It's the comment system which is incapable, not the people. IMO there was no good reason to design some people out of it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DFSG as Licence?
Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. Thanks and Nice Weekend Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the or later option, if that does what you want. The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody is under any obligation to please them. Personally, I'm allergic to more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff under the MIT license. It gives a little more permission than the GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial application. It doesn't interfere with my reasons for releasing it in the first place, and it lets any free software project use it, without any concerns about being GPL compatible. All the fuss about open source licenses being incompatible is, IMHO, contradictory to the spirit of free software, and spending time on such issues is counter-productive. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
On Sunday 11 June 2006 19:25, Måns Rullgård wrote: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the or later option, if that does what you want. The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody is under any obligation to please them. Personally, I'm allergic to more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff under the MIT license. It gives a little more permission than the GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial application. GPL allows commercial applications, but what GPL does not allow is becoming a 'proprietary application' (non-free). E.g. you are not allowed to grab a GPL'ed source code, modify it and distribute the modified binaries only. In that case GPL force you to publish the your source modifications, which is perfectly in the spirit of free software ... e.g. what is give is what you get. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sunday 11 June 2006 19:25, Måns Rullgård wrote: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the or later option, if that does what you want. The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody is under any obligation to please them. Personally, I'm allergic to more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff under the MIT license. It gives a little more permission than the GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial application. GPL allows commercial applications, but what GPL does not allow is becoming a 'proprietary application' (non-free). E.g. you are not OK, bad choice of words. I don't much care if someone uses my code in a proprietary application either. allowed to grab a GPL'ed source code, modify it and distribute the modified binaries only. In that case GPL force you to publish the your source modifications, which is perfectly in the spirit of free software ... e.g. what is give is what you get. What I'm talking about is different, each on their own free, licenses being deemed incompatible with each other. Examples are the GPL, the OpenSSL license, and the Open Software License. I find it hard to believe that most authors who choose to release under the GPL do so in order to prevent their code being used in a program released under the OSL. Neither of these two licenses (GPL and OSL) allows for proprieterization of code. However, I see it as a loss to the free software world as a whole, that the open source code is divided into several islands, between which no code sharing is allowed. This leads to time and efforts being wasted in reimplementing perfectly good code, only because the existing version has slightly different terms of use and distribution. How many cases of Foo is under GPL, Foo uses libcurl, libcurl can be linked with OpenSSL, hence Foo is non-distributable have been discussed on this list? I have no figures, but it is a recurring topic. Does anyone seriously believe that the authors of Foo intentionally created those situation? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
