Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
On 5/2/19 7:51 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Moshe Piekarski writes ("Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay
> package"):
>> The copyright holder made a statement on Facebook chat that he considers
>> the code to be in the public domain. Is that enough for me to consider
>> it such?
> While legally in some jurisdictions there is no such thing as public
> domain, I think the intent of the copyright holder - to grant very
> broad permissions, certainly broad enough for Debian - is clear.
>
> There is a difficulty with how we would provide evidence of this
> statement if it came to that. Can you put a transcript and/or
> (hopefully fairly small) screenshot into the source package ?
My intent was to create a gpl-3 fork of the code
>
> I don't use Facebook, so I will ask: How do you know that the Facebook
> user in question is the same person as the copyright holder ?
I'm not a facebook user either, I went by the name, the fact that
the pictures posted appeared to be of the same person as on his
site and the fact that he appeared to know what I was talking about.
> Ian.
>
Sincerely,
Moshe Piekarski
--
There's no such thing as a stupid question,
But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
Moshe Piekarski writes ("Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay
package"):
> The copyright holder made a statement on Facebook chat that he considers
> the code to be in the public domain. Is that enough for me to consider
> it such?
While legally in some jurisdictions there is no such thing as public
domain, I think the intent of the copyright holder - to grant very
broad permissions, certainly broad enough for Debian - is clear.
There is a difficulty with how we would provide evidence of this
statement if it came to that. Can you put a transcript and/or
(hopefully fairly small) screenshot into the source package ?
I don't use Facebook, so I will ask: How do you know that the Facebook
user in question is the same person as the copyright holder ?
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM Moshe Piekarski wrote: > The copyright holder made a statement on Facebook chat that he considers > the code to be in the public domain. Is that enough for me to consider > it such? Unfortunately dedicating code to the public domain is not feasible world-wide so a license is needed for areas where it does not exist or cannot be contributed to before death. The Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license aims to come as close as possible to a world-wide public domain dedication so the copyright holder might want to use that instead. Personally I would choose a copyleft license instead like the GNU General Public License so that people using the software are likely to also get a buildable copy of the code. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
The copyright holder made a statement on Facebook chat that he considers the code to be in the public domain. Is that enough for me to consider it such? Sincerely, Moshe Piekarski -- There's no such thing as a stupid question, But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
On 4/10/19 9:39 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Before that, it would be better to start a discussion with the copyright > holder(s) to get a more robust grant under free software conditions. Unfortunately the copyright holder hasn't answered any of my emails to the provided address, and I haven't been able to find another means of communication. Sincerely, Moshe Piekarski -- There's no such thing as a stupid question, But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
Moshe Piekarski writes: > On 4/10/19 7:50 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > > * If the formulation “please do foo” is an enforcible *condition* on the > > grant, then there are several such enforcible conditions that make > > this work non-free: > Given that the wordplay package may not meet the DFSG, do I have to > remove it? That may eventually be necessary, if the copyright holder(s) can't be convinced to make a DFSG-compatible grant of license in the work. Before that, it would be better to start a discussion with the copyright holder(s) to get a more robust grant under free software conditions. The existing Read Me document gives some hope here: * The spirit of the existing grant seems to be “I want this software to be useful to the world as free software”, which indicates that a future release under a GNU GPLv3-or-later grant could meet their wishes. * The copyright holder clearly wants to be contacted about this and about people building on the work. Let's hope the contact details still work! * So far there seems to be only one copyright holder in the work, which may make it easier to get a change of license grant. You could discuss with them to confirm whether this is still true for the work. -- \ “Following fashion and the status quo is easy. Thinking about | `\your users' lives and creating something practical is much | _o__)harder.” —Ryan Singer, 2008-07-09 | Ben Finney
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
On 4/10/19 7:50 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > * If the formulation “please do foo” is an enforcible *condition* on the > grant, then there are several such enforcible conditions that make > this work non-free: Given that the wordplay package may not meet the DFSG, do I have to remove it? Sincerely, Moshe Piekarski -- There's no such thing as a stupid question, But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
Ben Finney writes: > = > -- > > Wordplay Version 7.22 Evans A Criswell 03-20-96 > > -- > > This program was written for fun and is free. Distribute it as you please, > but please distribute the entire package, with the original words721.txt and > the readme file. If you modify the code, please mention my name in it as the > original author. Please send me a copy of improvements you make, because I > may include them in a future version. > > I may be contacted by email at crisw...@cs.uah.edu > > Evans A Criswell > Research Associate > Computer Science Department > University of Alabama in Huntsville > Huntsville, AL 35899 > > -- > = There is a significant ambiguity in this text, and I'm pretty sure we would find it problematic if this work were submitted today. The ambiguity is: What is the effect of “please do foo” in the context of a copyright license grant? * If the formulation “please do foo” is an unenforcible *request* to do foo, then there are no conditions in this grant. Under this interpretation, the legal effect is entirely in “Distribute [this program] as you please”. * If the formulation “please do foo” is an enforcible *condition* on the grant, then there are several such enforcible conditions that make this work non-free: * There is no permission granted to modify the work as the recipient pleases and to redistribute that modified work (instead, this is conditional on “distribute the entire package […]”). This fails DFSG§3. * There is an explicit clause preventing redistribution of parts of the work. This fails DFSG§1 and DFSG§3. * There is an explicit requirement that the person redistributing must send a copy to a specific party. This therefore fails DFSG§1 and DFSG§3. (See the thought experiments at https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html> for why.) So it seems that the only way this work can be considered free is if we take all the “please do foo” as mere unenforcible requests that don't place any restriction on the recipient. I don't know whether a copyright case would be decided that way by a judge; it seems at least likely that a judge would take “[grant of permission], but please [do foo]” as an expression of the copyright holder's intent to restrict the license grant. -- \ “I bought some batteries, but they weren't included; so I had | `\to buy them again.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney
