Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux
Op di 14-10-2003, om 07:17 schreef Branden Robinson: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 08:34:24AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: You missed the one big one, too: the apparent requirement to preferentially licence modifications you make to the copyright holders of the original SE copyright holders. Don't worry, I missed it too at first. grin Well, it turns out to be irrelevant as the upstream copyright holders seem disinclined to do anything at all about the licensing at present. If you can help us with setting up a license which fulfils our intention and at the same time has no unclear points, you are welcome to provide suggestions. Not that I think I'm experienced enough to provide suggestions, but can't we at least try? -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org If you're running Microsoft Windows, either scan your computer on viruses, or stop wasting my bandwith and remove me from your addressbook. *now*. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Alois Treindl wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: Personally my suggestion would be to adopt the dual QPL/GPL scheme just like Trolltech. Yes, except for one additional situation: We find more and more that software is developed not for distribution, but for inhouse use in commercial companies, e.g. to power a web application which makes money via web services. We would like this usage to be considered commercial, i.e. requiring a paid license. I am not sure that the GPL serves us here. Someone using Swiss Ephemeris unde the GPL could run it in some webservice, without ever paying anything, or ever ublishing anything back for the open source community. I have not looked at the QT license in that respect. Are you aware of that situation is covered in a way favourable for QT? My understanding is that the GPL is currently unclear on the topic of web services and this is going to be addressed in an upcoming GPL v3. I don't know about the QPL. I am taking the liberty of ccing your message to debian-legal as the people there are more knowledgeable on such subjects. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux
Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Alois Treindl wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: Personally my suggestion would be to adopt the dual QPL/GPL scheme just like Trolltech. Yes, except for one additional situation: We find more and more that software is developed not for distribution, but for inhouse use in commercial companies, e.g. to power a web application which makes money via web services. We would like this usage to be considered commercial, i.e. requiring a paid license. I am not sure that the GPL serves us here. Someone using Swiss Ephemeris unde the GPL could run it in some webservice, without ever paying anything, or ever ublishing anything back for the open source community. I have not looked at the QT license in that respect. Are you aware of that situation is covered in a way favourable for QT? My understanding is that the GPL is currently unclear on the topic of web services and this is going to be addressed in an upcoming GPL v3. I don't know about the QPL. I am taking the liberty of ccing your message to debian-legal as the people there are more knowledgeable on such subjects. I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Treindl does not want Swiss Ephemeris to be free software: freedom to exploit the software for commercial benefit is a necessary component of Debian's definition of Freedom. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:48:40AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op di 14-10-2003, om 07:17 schreef Branden Robinson: Well, it turns out to be irrelevant as the upstream copyright holders seem disinclined to do anything at all about the licensing at present. If you can help us with setting up a license which fulfils our intention and at the same time has no unclear points, you are welcome to provide suggestions. Not that I think I'm experienced enough to provide suggestions, but can't we at least try? It's just that I think setting up a license which fulfils our intention and at the same time has no unclear points is either a) impossible or b) will be very time-consuming. They did indicate that time was a factor for them. I'm not sure there exists a license with no unclear points if sufficient hair-splittling is brought to bear. We've even argued over whether it's *possible* to put something into the public domain in various jursdictions, so even the null license is unclear. (More precisely, I guess the null license is All rights reserved., but the meaning of *that* is a matter of constant debate as well.) -- G. Branden Robinson| When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:43:56AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: Should I close the ITP or keep it open and make a note that this software cannot currently be packaged? ITP - RFP, tag it wontfix, and make sure you make it quite clear that it can't be packaged for legal reasons, and probably make a reference to this thread (or threads, if it's diverged a bit, which I think it has). - Matt
Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux
Dear Mr. Koch and Dr. Treindl, First of all let me thank you for your Swiss Ephemeris software. I have found it to be very useful in the calculation of Hindu Calendars. I am writing to you because I am one of the volunteer maintainers of the Debian GNU/Linux operating system (http://www.debian.org/) and I would like to package your software for inclusion therein. Debian has stringent guidelines for the kind of software we include (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#dfsg) The Debian Free Software Guidelines are the basis of the Open Source Definition and are widely regarded as the gold standard of Free/Open Source software. While the Swiss Ephemeris Public License seems to meet our requirements, there are a few places which are a little unclear and we would appreciate it very much if you could provide clarifications. without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. Did you mean this to prohibit for-profit distribution? This license file and the copyright notices in the source files are the only places where the author's names may legally appear without specific prior written permission. Is the intent of this clause to stop the use of your names as endorsements of derived software or may they truly not be used in any place whatsoever? You may copy and distribute the SE provided that the entire package is distributed, including this License. Does entire mean the entire pre-modification version, or entire *after* it has been modified ? What if the modifications were so extensive that there isn't much of the original Swiss Ephemeris code left? If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if - you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a reasonable copy charge - or/and you develop and distribute software which is not published under an Open Source or equivalent license you must purchase the Swiss Ephemeris Professional Edition under the Swiss Ephemeris Professional License. This part of the preamble seems to contradict the language in the license itself. Is it permitted to include software which is SEPL licensed along with other software which does not qualify? (i.e. on a CD of non-free software.) Do you consider the preamble to be a normative interpretation of the license terms? Thankyou in advance for your response and please maintain the cc to debian-legal. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: Dear Mr. Koch and Dr. Treindl, First of all let me thank you for your Swiss Ephemeris software. I have found it to be very useful in the calculation of Hindu Calendars. I am writing to you because I am one of the volunteer maintainers of the Debian GNU/Linux operating system (http://www.debian.org/) and I would like to package your software for inclusion therein. Debian has stringent guidelines for the kind of software we include (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#dfsg) The Debian Free Software Guidelines are the basis of the Open Source Definition and are widely regarded as the gold standard of Free/Open Source software. While the Swiss Ephemeris Public License seems to meet our requirements, there are a few places which are a little unclear and we would appreciate it very much if you could provide clarifications. without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. Did you mean this to prohibit for-profit distribution? This license file and the copyright notices in the source files are the only places where the author's names may legally appear without specific prior written permission. Is the intent of this clause to stop the use of your names as endorsements of derived software or may they truly not be used in any place whatsoever? You may copy and distribute the SE provided that the entire package is distributed, including this License. Does entire mean the entire pre-modification version, or entire *after* it has been modified ? What if the modifications were so extensive that there isn't much of the original Swiss Ephemeris code left? If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if - you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a reasonable copy charge - or/and you develop and distribute software which is not published under an Open Source or equivalent license you must purchase the Swiss Ephemeris Professional Edition under the Swiss Ephemeris Professional License. This part of the preamble seems to contradict the language in the license itself. Is it permitted to include software which is SEPL licensed along with other software which does not qualify? (i.e. on a CD of non-free software.) Do you consider the preamble to be a normative interpretation of the license terms? Thankyou in advance for your response and please maintain the cc to debian-legal. Hi I am afraid we have currently no time to deal with the legal details implied by your questions. In consequence, we find it simpler if you refrain from including Swiss Ephemeris at this time into a Debian distribution. We are ware of shortcomings of our license, and that we should replace it with something more clear. We wanted and want a dual licensing concept, where we force commercial users to use the paid license, and allow (open source non-commercial) usage via a free license. But we have other things to do than dealing with the legal stuff. Our original license was inspired by the QT license. I am aware that they have gone to GPL, in a dual licensing concept, but have not studied their details. I think nobody has a disadvantage if Swiss Ephemeris is not included in Debian, but has to be downloaded separately from our site. If you can help us with setting up a license which fulfils our intention and at the same time has no unclear points, you are welcome to provide suggestions. Best regards -- || Alois Treindl, Astrodienst AG, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || Zollikon/Zurich, Switzerland || Free astrological charts at http://www.astro.com/ || SWISS EPHEMERIS Free Edition at http://www.astro.com/swisseph/
Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:51:47PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: Dear Mr. Koch and Dr. Treindl, [snip] regarded as the gold standard of Free/Open Source software. While the Swiss Ephemeris Public License seems to meet our requirements, there are a few places which are a little unclear and we would appreciate it very much if you could provide clarifications. You missed the one big one, too: the apparent requirement to preferentially licence modifications you make to the copyright holders of the original SE copyright holders. Don't worry, I missed it too at first. grin - Matt
