[giuliomazzolini@tiscalinet.it: Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG]
---BeginMessage--- On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:05:44AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: It does not say only any use ..is the sole responsability.. (disclaimer) it adds is forbidden... Any body who has been in far and strange countries knows how local law could be stupid, oppressive and casual, so since 'it is forbidden' it prevent the use in such countries where it could be forbidden by some local law, even if the law in question shall be considered 'illiberal' and 'oppressive' in other countries. But this is a legal document, any importance of such a document is given by the local laws (including intl conventions like the Berne one). Any body who wants/needs to break the law won't be stopped by a license. I mean, it's too a noop thing, can you see it? A afghani woman that use the program to work brakes the local lows, since talebanis forbid women to work. So the licence is discriminating afghan women. It should be different if it would be a disclaimer: the afghan woman will be allowed (by the licence terms) to use the program and after it will be her problem with talebani... It is like to sell a car with a contract that state that you are not allowed, signing that contract, to use the car to rob a bank. So if you rob a bank, not only you will persecuted by the local police, but you will also brake your contract with the car dealer who could claim the car back. ---End Message---
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: Branden Robinson wrote: Look up tort in a legal dictionary. Who gave this man a legal dictionary? What? Somebody needs to take it away from you before you hurt someone. ;-) -- see shy jo
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Branden Robinson wrote: Look up tort in a legal dictionary. Who gave this man a legal dictionary? -- see shy jo
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: Branden Robinson wrote: Look up tort in a legal dictionary. Who gave this man a legal dictionary? What? -- G. Branden Robinson |Murphy's Guide to Science: Debian GNU/Linux|If it's green or squirms, it's biology. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |If it stinks, it's chemistry. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |If it doesn't work, it's physics. pgpVOTuMK2B2E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
It does not say only any use ..is the sole responsability.. (disclaimer) it adds is forbidden... Any body who has been in far and strange countries knows how local law could be stupid, oppressive and casual, so since 'it is forbidden' it prevent the use in such countries where it could be forbidden by some local law, even if the law in question shall be considered 'illiberal' and 'oppressive' in other countries. But this is a legal document, any importance of such a document is given by the local laws (including intl conventions like the Berne one). Any body who wants/needs to break the law won't be stopped by a license. I mean, it's too a noop thing, can you see it?
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:28:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: He's correct, the current part of the license in question is: 1) Any use of analog which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. less stupid wording, but still, in my opinion, not free. It does not say only any use ..is the sole responsability.. (disclaimer) it adds is forbidden... Any body who has been in far and strange countries knows how local law could be stupid, oppressive and casual, so since 'it is forbidden' it prevent the use in such countries where it could be forbidden by some local law, even if the law in question shall be considered 'illiberal' and 'oppressive' in other countries. Should be the phrase only a disclaimer, it will be free. -- Dott.Ing. Giulio Mazzolini Nevsky Prospect, 13/13 St. Petersburg Russia tel + fax: +7 812 311 41 75 mob: +7 812 935 00 38 Piazza Irnerio, 2- Milano Italia tel + fax: +39 02 49 89 202 mob: +39 (0) 347 24 321 24
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
I am the upstream author of analog. Sorry for not contributing to this discussion earlier. I just got back from holiday to find this forty-message thread. Contrary to what the filer of the original bug says, I did change this clause after he contacted me before -- that's why it changed from (the obviously wrong) any action to the current any use of analog. I assumed by his silence that I'd met his objections, but I'm still not sure whether I did as he is still quoting from the old version of the licence. The reason for this clause was that I was advised by a lawyer (albeit in an informal conversation) that I could be liable under UK law if a user used the program to, for example, process user data against the Data Protection Act. The US courts seem to me to be leaning this way as well recently in cases on Napster et al. Personally, I don't really see that this condition is DFSG-non-free anyway in that it doesn't IMO restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. But I would also like _informed_ opinions on whether I could be liable in the UK for users' illegal use of analog. If so, would my clause cover me? Would a simple disclaimer clause? -- Stephen Turner http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/ Statistical Laboratory, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, England The new operating system will recover more easily from system crashes. (Microsoft, aiming high with Windows Millennium)
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
[my apologies for the private mail if you are subscribed to debian-legal] On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 07:30:05PM +0100, Stephen Turner wrote: The reason for this clause was that I was advised by a lawyer (albeit in an informal conversation) that I could be liable under UK law if a user used the program to, for example, process user data against the Data Protection Act. The US courts seem to me to be leaning this way as well recently in cases on Napster et al. Personally, I don't really see that this condition is DFSG-non-free anyway in that it doesn't IMO restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. But I would also like _informed_ opinions on whether I could be liable in the UK for users' illegal use of analog. If so, would my clause cover me? Would a simple disclaimer clause? Well, how about something like this? It's a standard part of the MIT license. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL STEPHEN TURNER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Can your lawyer live with that? -- G. Branden Robinson | When I die I want to go peacefully in Debian GNU/Linux| my sleep like my ol' Grand Dad...not [EMAIL PROTECTED] | screaming in terror like his passengers. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | pgptU5XK2PKlb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On 15 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: I may quote: Any use of analog which is illegal under You quote wrong. It says: | 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is | forbidden by this licence. Ok, then the licence is old. Take the new from analogs home page. There it is Any use Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 03:56:20PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. It is not. Consider this scenario: A is a citizen of [insert your favorite evil oppresive police state]. I am living in Russia, where the laws are confused, uncertain, where the limit between legality and illegality is often unclear. Most probably I am doing here each day many illegal actions without knowing it, also because my knoledge of the russian language is not good enought to understand the (obscure) legal language, so 'in fact' this license restricts its use to me, so it is not free. Dott.Ing. Giulio Mazzolini Nevsky Prospect, 13/13 St. Petersburg Russia tel + fax: +7 812 311 41 75 mob: +7 812 935 00 38 Piazza Irnerio, 2- Milano Italia tel + fax: +39 02 49 89 202 mob: +39 (0) 347 24 321 24
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote: Actually, there is a point related to what Bernhard is saying. At least in the U.S., only a small, small fraction of the laws are criminal laws. Could you please define what criminal laws are, and where you found such a word and defintion. Steve -- If Microsoft doesn't trust Windows(TM), why should you? http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote: Actually, there is a point related to what Bernhard is saying. At least in the U.S., only a small, small fraction of the laws are criminal laws. On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 05:29:59AM -0700, Steve M Bibayoff wrote: Could you please define what criminal laws are, and where you found such a word and defintion. By criminal laws I meant laws which define crimes: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18 -- Raul
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Bernhard R. Link wrote: You quote wrong. It says: | 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is | forbidden by this licence. Ok, then the licence is old. Take the new from analogs home page. There it is Any use He's correct, the current part of the license in question is: 1) Any use of analog which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. -- see shy jo
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Scripsit John Galt Basically, it all boils down to: where this contract fails, ALL contracts fail, No. It says that if I commit any crime whatsoever (e.g. bicycling at night without the lights on), then I am breaking the contract that lets me use the software. This does *NOT* apply to all other contracts. If I murder people and get jailed for that, I am still allowed to use emacs in prison - and I *should* still be allowed to use all of Debian. Software that does not allow itself to be used by criminals is not free. Let the proper authorities enforce the law and punish offenders. It is not the job of free software authors to do so. Since the DFSG has no explicit demand that a license not refer to the legality/illegality of the licensee's actions, The DFSG has a very explicit demant that the license should apply to everyone. Everyone also includes people who break laws. -- Henning Makholm The compile-time type checker for this language has proved to be a valuable filter which traps a significant proportion of programming errors.
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote: The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard. This clause in particular is designed so people don't subjectively chose who they like and who they don't. I also think so about objectivity. But you can overract. For example, i could get mad and see it as my field of endeavor to release any source code to public domain, even those not from me. Or I wnat to break any software-licence I cen get. So the GPL would be non-free, as it discrimated against my Fields of Endavor. So, I think there has to be some resonablity. And Thus I think Ananalog does not violate No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. But I have been convinced that this passus is bad, as it is very nasty to punish those how brake the law by removing their right to use the software. (Which keeps beeing true where the software is used to break the law.) So I think Analog is non-free, as it violates No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups. (As the group of persons breaking law is a group of persons) Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: No. It says that if I commit any crime whatsoever (e.g. bicycling at night without the lights on), then I am breaking the contract that lets me use the software. I may quote: Any use of analog which is illegal under So your example does not make sense. (Only if you used this software to do so, but then the contract would be void). So this paragraph is either not necessasary becaue of induced by law or it is non-free. (But please: Not because of crime as field of endavour. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Scripsit Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: No. It says that if I commit any crime whatsoever (e.g. bicycling at night without the lights on), then I am breaking the contract that lets me use the software. I may quote: Any use of analog which is illegal under You quote wrong. It says: | 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is | forbidden by this licence. (But please: Not because of crime as field of endavour. It is, whether you like it or not. -- Henning Makholm What has it got in its pocketses?
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Scripsit Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] (But please: Not because of crime as field of endavour. On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:08:18AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: It is, whether you like it or not. Actually, there is a point related to what Bernhard is saying. At least in the U.S., only a small, small fraction of the laws are criminal laws. -- Raul
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: Please let me know what you think. - Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The Analog licence states: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: We've had arguments over export regulations, and the general consensus is that they aren't DFSG free, so this isn't either. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects called the human race. Lost in space, lost in time, and meaning. -- RHPS
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: 6.No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. I don't follow; maybe I'm just being dense, but section 1 seems like a no-op to me, a cover-your-ass by the attorney who wrote it to cover the case where a jurisdiction may decide that another clause in the license contradicts some law somewhere, thus rendering the license void (in that jurisdiction) or clearing the way for someone to get the author into legal hot water. That clause is arguably a feeble insurance against that. Maybe? Oh, wait, unless you're interpreting this very broadly, that it's not just the laws that apply to the copier within their specific jurisdiction, but the union set of all laws everywhere are applied to everyone. The language in the license is indeed sloppy, but I can't believe someone would reasonably think that this was what was intended. Even in that situation, though, it *still* doesn't violate DFSG #6, as far as I can tell. On a stretch, those international or local laws may be specific to an endeavor, but the license term is not. Brian
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
David Starner wrote: On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: Please let me know what you think. - Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The Analog licence states: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: We've had arguments over export regulations, and the general consensus is that they aren't DFSG free, so this isn't either. I don't follow. This is not an export restriction. -- see shy jo
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: 6.No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. I don't follow; maybe I'm just being dense, but section 1 seems like a no-op to me, a cover-your-ass by the attorney who wrote it to cover I rather agree. It does seem that if you break the law using the software, you've set your self up for a legal double whammy -- a criminal trial and a license violation suit. -- see shy jo
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:16:08AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: 6.No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. I don't follow; maybe I'm just being dense, but section 1 seems like a no-op to me, a cover-your-ass by the attorney who wrote it to cover I rather agree. It does seem that if you break the law using the software, you've set your self up for a legal double whammy -- a criminal trial and a license violation suit. It restricts the software from being used for violent overthrow of the government for example. It also forces people to follow otherwise unenforcable and unenforced international laws (technically, the Constitution never gave the UN any law making power, so as long as the U.S. is a soverign nation, internation law is only binding so long as it's enforced by a corresponding local law.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects called the human race. Lost in space, lost in time, and meaning. -- RHPS
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: Please let me know what you think. - Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: First of all I see this as a moot point, as an illigal action is illegal. By saying that you behave illegal, when you do something illegal is no discrimination in my eyes but should be seen as only beeing a reiminder. (But I am not a lawyer at all). The licence is in my eyes not very well designed, I do not know, but it may be possible for 19 people to copy less than 1000 lines to a gpl-program and than copying all these lines together to an gpl-version of analog. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Scripsit Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: I don't follow; maybe I'm just being dense, but section 1 seems like a no-op to me, It is not. Consider this scenario: A is a citizen of [insert your favorite evil oppresive police state]. He happens to use this software to speek his mind against the government, is persecuted by the authorities but escapes narrowly to the free world. All is well, or not? No, because he not only broke the local laws, he also broke the license of the software. Then the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he broke originally. That certainly discriminates against fields of endeavor, namely against any field of endeavor that is illegal anywhere. a cover-your-ass by the attorney who wrote it to cover the case where a jurisdiction may decide that another clause in the license contradicts some law somewhere, thus rendering the license void That is a possible explanation of what they *thought* they wrote, but is not what they *actually* wrote. A much better wording would be: | Licensee takes note that local laws may limit his exercise of the | rights granted by this License Agreement. Licensor does not | encourage the any activities that are against applicable local | law, and assumes no responsibility for any consequence of such | actions. This would be DFSG-free. -- Henning MakholmManden med det store pindsvin er kommet vel ombord i den grønne dobbeltdækker.
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Scripsit Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] We've had arguments over export regulations, and the general consensus is that they aren't DFSG free, so this isn't either. I don't follow. This is not an export restriction. No, but the problem with export restriction clauses is not that they concern export laws specifically. The problem is that such a clause essentially incorporates the entire applicable body of laws into the license terms by reference. Thus any silly and unjust rules found in a law anywhere is *a part of the license* as far as at least some potential Debian users are concerned. The clause is not a no-op. If I cross the street when the red light is on (which has happened), it does matter quite a lot to me whether I get fined DKR 500, or I get fined DKR 500 and then sued for DKR 50.000 because I broke the contract that otherwise allowed me to distribute this software to 100 of my friends. -- Henning Makholm I consider the presence of the universe to be a miracle. The universe and everything in it. Can you deny it?
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. Hmm.. and what about actions which are illegal even though the law has no jurisdiction? [For example, consider diplomatic immunity -- I believe that there are other examples, but I'm too lame to think of them right now.] -- Raul
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
begin Bernhard R. Link quotation of Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:34:05AM +0200: First of all I see this as a moot point, as an illigal action is illegal. By saying that you behave illegal, when you do something illegal is no discrimination in my eyes but should be seen as only beeing a reiminder. (But I am not a lawyer at all). First of all, crime, especially organized crime, is a Field of Endeavor. Second, some people who are considered criminals in one country are freedom fighters in another country. Third, I can understand why there shouldn't be no breaking the law clauses in free software licenses. Let's say that example.com installs a new free accounting system, with a no breaking the law clause in its license, at tremendous cost in hardware and consulting time. Due to human error, they issue paychecks to all their employees for less than minimum wage. They correct the error, make up the missed pay, and pay a fine -- but in the meantime they have lost the license to their accounting system, and can no longer stay in business. Not even proprietary software licenses include a clause like this, since companies inadvertently break the law all the time. Licenses that require legally perfect behavior in an imperfect society with complex laws are unrealistic and dangerous. -- Don MartiThis email brought to you [EMAIL PROTECTED] by the number 67 and the http://zgp.org/~dmarti/ operator XOR. whois DM683 Software patent reform now: http://burnallgifs.org/
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: It is not. Consider this scenario: the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he broke originally. I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where does the author want to sue him? As I understand law, A broke only the copyright laws of his evil country. (As you said before: International agreements are not law but are enforced as local laws folliwong this international standards) (Ecxept when the USA are involved in it, as they asume the whole planet as their territority). That is a possible explanation of what they *thought* they wrote, but is not what they *actually* wrote. A much better wording would be: | Licensee takes note that local laws may limit his exercise of the | rights granted by this License Agreement. Licensor does not | encourage the any activities that are against applicable local | law, and assumes no responsibility for any consequence of such | actions. I agree such a wording be much more better, but I not agree that the other is non-free. (But IANL..) Anyone tried to ask the author to make it clearer, so that there is no need for an flame-war? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link (Falls ich auf Mails and diese Mailaddresse nicht mehr antworte, bitte stattdessen an [EMAIL PROTECTED] verschicken.)
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Don Marti wrote: First of all, crime, especially organized crime, is a Field of Endeavor. Second, some people who are considered criminals in one country are freedom fighters in another country. I do not think that theese are so valid points. Third, [..] Not even proprietary software licenses include a clause like this, since companies inadvertently break the law all the time. Licenses that require legally perfect behavior in an imperfect society with complex laws are unrealistic and dangerous. But this is an arguement, that make me change my opinion. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
Scripsit Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: It is not. Consider this scenario: the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he broke originally. I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where does the author want to sue him? Perhaps because the author's former boyfriend left her in favor of A. Perhaps because the author, in his professional life, trades with [IEFEOPS] and has discreetly be informed that he may lose a contract if he lets A walk around unpunished. Perhaps the author and A are neighbours and got into war about playing loud music late at night? It is fine to judge licenses from a they're probably nice people, and why would they want to sue position when judging them for one's own use. But when we're judging licenses on behalf of all Debian users, we have to set higher standards. Otherwise we could just as well accept This is public domain and must not be sold pseudo-licenses -- for the vast majority of authors of such programs would never dream of suing somebody just because they make Debian CDs and sell them at whatever price the market will sustain (which is not much). -- Henning Makholm We will discuss your youth another time.
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 06:14:59PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Don Marti wrote: First of all, crime, especially organized crime, is a Field of Endeavor. Second, some people who are considered criminals in one country are freedom fighters in another country. I do not think that theese are so valid points. The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard. This clause in particular is designed so people don't subjectively chose who they like and who they don't. A lot of people have put in clauses in their licenses against the 'evil' people - military, racists, genetic researchers, criminals, etc. Allowing one clause and not another weakens the objectivity of the DFSG, and judging based on subjective instead of objective reasons also weakens the DFSG. Anyway, if this is acceptable, then can someone put in a clause about breaking God's law invalidates the license? I think pretty much all the arguments in this thread for the clause would also apply to such a clause. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects called the human race. Lost in space, lost in time, and meaning. -- RHPS
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 06:11:15PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where does the author want to sue him? As I understand law, A broke only the copyright laws of his evil country. (As you said before: International agreements are not law but are enforced as local laws folliwong this international standards) (Ecxept when the USA are involved in it, as they asume the whole planet as their territority). Nope. [1] The clause doesn't restrict itself to only copyright laws nor even to only good laws. [2] The clause does explicitly mention international law and even though that might not be recognized as law at ever locale, there is a body of work known as international law. -- Raul
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: Please let me know what you think. I think we have had this debate before :} I don't remember what the final result was, but most agreed that it is silly to place restrictions on a license agreement that are already implied by local law, as they are really beyond the scope of licensing. Who is going to be prevented from using software by a license agreement, that is already unconcerned with the law? It certainly looks as if the intent of this clause is to prevent the software author from being held liable of an end user uses it for some illegal purpose. But I don't think that would be likely, anyway, even with the modern legal climate. My particular perspective is that it *should* not make a package DFSG-unfree. Since the software cannot be used in the prohibited manner anyway, no actual freedom is restricted.
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote: The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard. Not really, it's way too broad for that. If it were completely objective there'd be no debate about whether a given license violated it or not. Anyway, if this is acceptable, then can someone put in a clause about breaking God's law invalidates the license? I think pretty much all the arguments in this thread for the clause would also apply to such a clause. No, because copyright law is something that's enforced by a jurisdiction, that same jurisdiction (presumably, though the license was unclear about this) whose other laws the license is mandating you follow. Copyright law is not enforced by God. Brian
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:07:22PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote: The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard. Not really, it's way too broad for that. If it were completely objective there'd be no debate about whether a given license violated it or not. There will always be fuzzy lines and misinterpretations. The real world is not math. But the DFSG was designed so that someone could take a license and see whether Debian will accept it as free, without polling the Debian developers. I think that's a good license should come into it little, if at all. Frankly, even if it were completely objective, there would still be debate. I've seen quite a few rephrased MIT licenses cross debian-legal, with people wondering whether they were DFSG free, despite the unambiguity. Anyway, if this is acceptable, then can someone put in a clause about breaking God's law invalidates the license? I think pretty much all the arguments in this thread for the clause would also apply to such a clause. No, because copyright law is something that's enforced by a jurisdiction, that same jurisdiction (presumably, though the license was unclear about this) whose other laws the license is mandating you follow. Actually, no. Copyright law would be federal (and internation) jurisdiction, whereas the license forces you to follow local laws too. So this license could force a federal judge to rule on local laws. Ugly. I don't understand how this would apply, anyway. Copyright law is not enforced by God. So? God's law is still something you have to follow anyway, so including it in the license is a no-op (or so some have argued.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects called the human race. Lost in space, lost in time, and meaning. -- RHPS
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a keep it legal clause make it non DFSG free? Contracts (licensing agreements) may not cover illegal actions: a contract to perform an arson is null and void regardless of the wording of the contract. So logically, a contract that has a keep it legal clause is simply making explicit what is already implicit in most every jurisdiction: the common law idea that illegal actions void contracts. Logically, if a keep it legal clause makes a license non DFSG free, under common law NO license is DFSG free, since all contracts are voided once the law is broken. In Henning's hypothetical, if the free country that the person escaped to was a common law nation, the license was voided during the illegal act, so they're up for copyright infringement no matter what (whether the copyright holders know this or would do anything about this is another matter). This is one of the few places where the DFSG fails the sanity test, and the worst part about it is that there is nothing explicitly in the DFSG that is the offender, just an interpretation. Either the DFSG is overbroad or we should really do a stricter parsing of the DFSG. On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: I don't follow; maybe I'm just being dense, but section 1 seems like a no-op to me, It is not. Consider this scenario: A is a citizen of [insert your favorite evil oppresive police state]. He happens to use this software to speek his mind against the government, is persecuted by the authorities but escapes narrowly to the free world. All is well, or not? No, because he not only broke the local laws, he also broke the license of the software. Then the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he broke originally. That certainly discriminates against fields of endeavor, namely against any field of endeavor that is illegal anywhere. a cover-your-ass by the attorney who wrote it to cover the case where a jurisdiction may decide that another clause in the license contradicts some law somewhere, thus rendering the license void That is a possible explanation of what they *thought* they wrote, but is not what they *actually* wrote. A much better wording would be: | Licensee takes note that local laws may limit his exercise of the | rights granted by this License Agreement. Licensor does not | encourage the any activities that are against applicable local | law, and assumes no responsibility for any consequence of such | actions. This would be DFSG-free. -- You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:10:52PM -0600, John Galt wrote: This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a keep it legal clause make it non DFSG free? Keep it legal is not the clause being discussed. Instead, it's 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this license. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. Now, the question is: is this clause meaningless, or is it not? If it doesn't really mean anything, it should just be taken out of the license. Meaningless verbiage doesn't help anyone. But I don't think we are ever safe to assume that the language of a copyright license is meaningless. So that means we need to look at the cases where it has meaning. The cases where this clause would have meaning are cases where jurisprudence is ambiguous. Where local or international laws are acknowledged to exist, but would not ordinarily apply. -- Raul
RE: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
IMHO the problems with legality clauses in contracts can be summarized in several points: (Disclaimer - this isn't legal advice, get yer own durn lawyer, yadda yadda yadda. See below.) 1. Not all countries adhere to the common law (mostly just the UK its former colonies, like US, Canada, Australia, etc.). I do not know enough about civil law jurisdictions to make a definitive statement about their contract laws. But I would guess the voidness or voidability of a contract on grounds of illegality or impossibility cannot be taken for granted in all such jurisdictions. Note also the distinction between void and voidable - void is always unenforceable, whereas voidable is binding on both parties until one takes legal action to void it - jurisdictions might vary on which applies under what circumstances. Then there are the equitable doctrines like estoppel, laches and unclean hands which might also overturn perfectly legal contracts 2. Most of these clauses do not mention a specific jurisdiction's laws - thus they could be construed as void for vagueness (and if you don't have a severability clause - then the whole contract could be voided). Alternately, those that do invoke a specific jurisdiction's laws, could be judged as inapplicable or unenforceable in another jurisdiction's courts. Do you really think (for example) China, Iraq or Libya cares how a Virginia state court would interpret UCITA (assuming they even care about UCITA at all)? 3. Choice of law and choice of venue often get confused in these clauses (I believe another poster in the thread already covered this fairly well). Basically - choice of venue is hazardous at best. Choice of law should be what we are discussing here. 4. There has also been some discussion about the differences (if any) between contracts and licenses in past threads. I would only add that most free as in beer licenses could conceivably be attacked under a lack of consideration theory (what does the author get in return for your use of the code? egoboo isn't a currency) - basically rendering the code as no more than a gift, or entering the public domain. Of course, lack of consideration is a pretty rare difficult defense nowadays in the U.S., but again, other jurisdictions might vary 5. Even if everything you say is correct, then basically such clauses are superflous, since local laws, treaties, etc. will already govern the contract. Excess verbiage in a contract is usually to be avoided (unless you are the lawyer getting paid by the hour or the word ;-P ). BTW, IWALBIGIU (I was a lawyer but I gave it up). Currently on inactive status - State Bar of Texas. (Yes it was voluntary, not for disciplinary reasons or anything). Not Board Certified by the Texas State Board of Legal Specialization. (They made me say that.) Caveat lector. ;-) -- Eric R. Sherrill, WF Software Systems Engineer Texas Instruments HFAB1 Automation Systems Stafford, TX 77477-3006 -Original Message- From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 3:11 PM To: Henning Makholm Cc: Brian Behlendorf; Joey Hess; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a keep it legal clause make it non DFSG free? Contracts (licensing agreements) may not cover illegal actions: a contract to perform an arson is null and void regardless of the wording of the contract. So logically, a contract that has a keep it legal clause is simply making explicit what is already implicit in most every jurisdiction: the common law idea that illegal actions void contracts. Logically, if a keep it legal clause makes a license non DFSG free, under common law NO license is DFSG free, since all contracts are voided once the law is broken. In Henning's hypothetical, if the free country that the person escaped to was a common law nation, the license was voided during the illegal act, so they're up for copyright infringement no matter what (whether the copyright holders know this or would do anything about this is another matter). This is one of the few places where the DFSG fails the sanity test, and the worst part about it is that there is nothing explicitly in the DFSG that is the offender, just an interpretation. Either the DFSG is overbroad or we should really do a stricter parsing of the DFSG. On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of the DFSG which states: I don't follow; maybe I'm just being dense, but section 1 seems like a no-op to me, It is not. Consider this scenario: A is a citizen of [insert your favorite evil oppresive police state]. He
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
By my argument, it's redundant, not meaningless. The action which is illegal voids the contract, both in common law and explicitly by this particular contract clause. Basically, it all boils down to: where this contract fails, ALL contracts fail, and if this is not the case, the contract is unenforcable since the rule of common law doesn't exist for this contract to be binding under. As for Raul's comment about if the comment is meaningless, it should be taken out, the same logic works if you s/meaningless/redundant/, but if restating common law makes a license non-free, then it should be explicitly stated in the DFSG. This comes back to my point about the DFSG either being overbroad or not parsed explicitly. If the DFSG is read against the explicit terms of the license, shouldn't it be read explicitly in its own right? Since the DFSG has no explicit demand that a license not refer to the legality/illegality of the licensee's actions, logically, the same explicit reading that's being done to the license in question, if it were applied to the DFSG, should read this license as DFSG free. On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:10:52PM -0600, John Galt wrote: This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a keep it legal clause make it non DFSG free? Keep it legal is not the clause being discussed. Instead, it's 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this license. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. Now, the question is: is this clause meaningless, or is it not? If it doesn't really mean anything, it should just be taken out of the license. Meaningless verbiage doesn't help anyone. But I don't think we are ever safe to assume that the language of a copyright license is meaningless. So that means we need to look at the cases where it has meaning. The cases where this clause would have meaning are cases where jurisprudence is ambiguous. Where local or international laws are acknowledged to exist, but would not ordinarily apply. -- Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person committing the action. I jaywalked yesterday in CA, so did I now break the licence agreement? I jaywalked yesterday to use the software on the other side of the road, did I break the license? By my understanding of it, I did. Steve -- If Microsoft doesn't trust Windows(TM), why should you? http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP
