Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Le mardi 06 juin 2006 à 00:30 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another country. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from *all* countries in the world, are you? Probably not, which means that I cannot accept to be bound by this license. This is because you are misinterpreting it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 11:16 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on top of that. We are, after all, talking about laws that prohibit *the sharing of software*, which is one of the most fundamental features of Free Software. This indeed makes a lot of sense. Not only does the license ask to respect the law, it is terminated when you violate any kind of law or regulation. I stand corrected. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as xfonts-utils. Thanks. I'll correct that. Often it's not clear to me which package is being discussed, so I sometimes guess, sometimes I guess wrongly and sometimes I probably omit threads which should appear. Corrections by direct email are welcomed. CC preserved to inform OP. -- 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: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 10:05:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as xfonts-utils. Thanks. I'll correct that. Often it's not clear to me which package is being discussed, so I sometimes guess, sometimes I guess wrongly and sometimes I probably omit threads which should appear. Corrections by direct email are welcomed. No problem. I figured you'd see it here anyway, and the clarification might be useful. The GLX issue I mentioned above does affect the X server (as well as some other packages) for future reference, since I'm sure it'll come up again in a few months as it's a chronic problem. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if I live in Italy? I don't think this is what the clause says. It is just a useless you shall respect the law clause. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. ***all applicable laws and regulations*** U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. andrew Choice of venue, which is non-free. I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. Why do you think so? Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. Those who don't are wrong. -- Henning MakholmThere is a danger that curious users may occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Monday 05 June 2006 11:26, Andrew Donnellan wrote: -cut-- It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. ***all applicable laws and regulations*** U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. There are jurisdictions (either being exotic or not) which respect others jurisdictions laws by means of mutual agreements or any other form(s) and this could be easily enforced when texts in plain words occur like: U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. -- 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-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On 6/5/06, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. There are jurisdictions (either being exotic or not) which respect others jurisdictions laws by means of mutual agreements or any other form(s) and this could be easily enforced when texts in plain words occur like: U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. (BTW, I disagree with the this clause is already implied in the law so let's ignore it because it's harmless school of thought. If the clause is there it's intended to have an effect. What if laws change? What about other jurisdictions?). -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. It is there, no matter being additive or not: 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. -- 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-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. It is there, no matter being additive or not: Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be more clear this time around. It says (broken down into more discreet grammtaical elements) You shall comply with all applicable laws (list 1 .. 4), including but not just element 2. If the the applicable laws in your country don't include element 2, this is a nonsense statement. If it said instead: You must comply with all applicable laws of your country, including the Sharia, do you think it means that in countries that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction? Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:14, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. It is there, no matter being additive or not: Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be more clear this time around. It says (broken down into more discreet grammtaical elements) You shall comply with all applicable laws (list 1 .. 4), including but not just element 2. If the the applicable laws in your country don't include element 2, this is a nonsense statement. I do not parse the license text that way. In that case the law is applicable because it is requested by the license and could be enforced in jurisdictions when the above statement is not a nonsense, e.g. comply with US export and import control laws for any reasons. If it said instead: You must comply with all applicable laws of your country, including the Sharia, do you think it means that in countries that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction? If the license says so (requires impossible or irrelevant demands) and I'm unable or unwilling to comply with then I'm not allowed to use the product. (btw, do not forget that Sharia is a law within some jurisdictions or better said laws follow the Sharia). So I wont be surprised if the above example given by you appears to be a reality somewhere. Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. It is free in some jurisdictions, but could be dangerous in others. -- 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-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 13:14:49 +0100, Stephen Gran escribía: that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction? After seeing licenses that claim not to be affected by any laws that would make any of its clauses illegal, I'd expect anything from them. Yeah, such clauses would be void, but the best thing you could make in such a case would not to accept the license at all (and not distribute the software). Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. Another[0] piece of hideous pseudopoetry: If this software you want to use, abide by laws with no excuse; for if you're ever caught speeding, this very agreement will be rescinded. [0] http://raw-output.org/20060605/decorative-clauses -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 15:39:01 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía: Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. Another[0] piece of hideous pseudopoetry: Sorry. What I mean is that I'm very suspicious of such clauses, because the usual claim is that they have no effect at the end. Well, if they don't, why are they there? -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if I live in Italy? I don't think this is what the clause says. It is just a useless you shall respect the law clause. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. ***all applicable laws and regulations*** ***including all export and import control laws of the U.S. government*** This clause _defines_ that US export laws are applicable. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. Defining that US export laws are applicable no matter whether they would be without the license is very highly non-free. -- Henning MakholmWhat a hideous colour khaki is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. No. It says that US *AND OTHER COUNTRIES* export/import laws should be respected. US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another country. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from *all* countries in the world, are you? Choice of venue, which is non-free. I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. Why do you think so? Maybe I don't want to lose time to explain it to people who say: Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. Those who don't are wrong. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Monday 05 June 2006 19:33, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. No. It says that US *AND OTHER COUNTRIES* export/import laws should be respected. US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another country. That depends. What if a country (or jurisdiction) does not have a export/import laws or its export/import laws stipulate that certain bilaterial agreements are in power for such cases. Having 'U.S.' in a law name does not mean that that law is not respected / enforced or complied with in any other jurisdiction. How do you think criminals repatration works between different jurisdictions... it is simply based on respecting other's jurisdictions laws by means of agreements we could hardly be familiar with for every single jurisdiction. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from *all* countries in the world, are you? This is not relevant to the case. -- 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-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:27:38PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. Who cares? Why are we having this hair-splitting discussion about which jurisdictions US export and import controls apply in? The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on top of that. We are, after all, talking about laws that prohibit *the sharing of software*, which is one of the most fundamental features of Free Software. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on top of that. As already discussed elsewhere: how do you feel about the 3rd clause of the 3-clause BSD license? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. No. It says that US *AND OTHER COUNTRIES* export/import laws should be respected. Which is even more than demanding only that the US laws are complied with. US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another country. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from *all* countries in the world, are you? Probably not, which means that I cannot accept to be bound by this license. -- Henning Makholm And here we could talk about the Plato's Cave thing for a while---the Veg-O-Matic of metaphors---it slices! it dices! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on top of that. Well said, and a good argument that my previous comments in this thread actually miss the point. I stand corrected. -- Henning Makholm ... popping pussies into pies Wouldn't do in my shop just the thought of it's enough to make you sick and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote: [Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.] Hello, I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public License, included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm, was recently removed because the license was regarded non-free; this statement seems to come from Xorg upstream, see their Bug#5553 [1]. [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5553 One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils' package, and the full license included in its debian/copyright file, which makes me think the license has been ruled to be DFSG-free in the past. I took a quick look myself and, although I saw a couple of potentially problematic points, I'm more interested in -legal's assessment of whether this license surpasses or not the limits that are being applied to main nowadays. Just a note: I had to make a judgement call on this one, since it wasn't clearly non-free to me. In the end, because I'm not a fan of the problematic clauses and the program in question was, aiui, for essentially obsolete font formats, I decided to drop it. In contrast, the license for the GLX implementation that we're shipping also contains problematic clauses, but I'm not willing to yank it just yet. The reason is because it's critical to the way people expect an X server to work and there's no Free alternative. This obviously needs fixing (I'm hoping someone who's interested in this problem would put the time in to contacting SGI and trying to politely get it relicensed) and it's a far more important licensing problem affecting the X codebase than the mkcfm license. - David Nusinow p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as xfonts-utils. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if I live in Italy? If this is the case, I would say the clause is non-free. I don't think this is what the clause says. It is just a useless you shall respect the law clause. Any liti- gation relating to this License shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdic- tion of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California (or, absent subject matter jurisdiction in such courts, the courts of the State of Cali- fornia), with venue lying exclusively in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. Choice of venue, which is non-free. I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if I live in Italy? I don't think this is what the clause says. It is just a useless you shall respect the law clause. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. Choice of venue, which is non-free. I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. Why do you think so? Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. Those who don't are wrong. -- Henning MakholmThere is a danger that curious users may occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:52:22 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: I hate to say it, but I suspect there is a lot of non-free stuff in 'main', simply because most maintainers do not check their licenses carefully. Even the best maintainers. I agree: it's sad but (probably) true... :-((( -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpkhXtlYQWN5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:58:18 +0200 Adeodato Simó wrote: [...] 2. License Terms. [...] (iii) Recipient hereby indemnifies SGI for any liability incurred by SGI as a result of the distri- bution of Accompanying Technology or the use of other license terms. Danger: indemnification clause. I'm not sure how far this can get. It seems it could become onerous... If Recipient is compelled to pay what should by law be payed by SGI, this is non-free... [...] 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. [...] Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if I live in Italy? If this is the case, I would say the clause is non-free. [...] 7. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient at any time has knowledge of any one or more third party claims that reproduction, modification, use, distribu- tion, import or sale of Subject Software (including particular functionality or code incorporated in Subject Software) infringes the third party's intel- lectual property rights, Recipient must place in a well-identified web page bearing the title LEGAL a description of each such claim and a description of the party making each such claim in sufficient detail that a user of the Subject Software will know whom to contact regarding the claim. Also, upon gaining such knowledge of any such claim, Recipient must conspicuously include the URL for such web page in the Required Notice, and in the text of any related documentation, license agreement or collateral in which Recipient describes end user's rights relating to the Subject Software. If Recipient obtains such knowledge after it makes Subject Software available to any other person or entity, Recipient shall take other steps (such as notifying appro- priate mailing lists or newsgroups) reasonably calculated to provide such knowledge to those who received the Subject Software. This, in part, is somewhat similar to MPLv1.1, clause 3.4.(a). That was a lawyerbomb at best. It requires at least clarification from licensor. It was discussed back in 2004 on this list. The draft summary claimed it was non-free: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html MJ Ray didn't quite agree, but stated it was a lawyerbomb: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00514.html But the present clause seems to go beyond and require the publication of a web page. As Nathanael already pointed out, it's a fee. As a consequence, I would conclude that the present clause is non-free. [...] 10. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages arising, directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License. Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold SGI and its successors and assigns harmless from and against any loss, liability, damages, costs or expenses (including the payment of reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of (Recipi- ent's use, modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Soft- ware or out of any representation or warranty made by Recipient. This adds up to the previous indemnification clause, it seems. [...] 12. Miscellaneous. [...] This License shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States and the State of California as applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within California between California residents. Choice of law, which is usually acceptable. Any liti- gation relating to this License shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdic- tion of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California (or, absent subject matter jurisdiction in such courts, the courts of the State of Cali- fornia), with venue lying exclusively in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. Choice of venue, which is non-free. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Any law or regulation that provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. [...] This is similar to CDDLv1.0, clause 9. As I stated back in september 2005 in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00206.html the license claims to have the Power To Nuke Laws(TM). I don't know if this is enforceable, or not. But it doesn't sound good. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: [Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.] I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public License, included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm, was recently removed because the license was regarded non-free; this statement seems to come from Xorg upstream, see their Bug#5553 [1]. [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5553 One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils' package, and the full license included in its debian/copyright file, which makes me think the license has been ruled to be DFSG-free in the past. I took a quick look myself and, although I saw a couple of potentially problematic points, I'm more interested in -legal's assessment of whether this license surpasses or not the limits that are being applied to main nowadays. snip 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Recipient may not distribute Subject Software that (i) in any way infringes (directly or contributorily) the rights (including patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark or other intellectual property rights of any kind) of any other person or entity, or (ii) breaches any representation or warranty, express, implied or statutory, which under any applicable law it might be deemed to have been distributed. Requires compliance with laws as a condition of the license. Definitely non-free. 7. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient at any time has knowledge of any one or more third party claims that reproduction, modification, use, distribu- tion, import or sale of Subject Software (including particular functionality or code incorporated in Subject Software) infringes the third party's intel- lectual property rights, Recipient must place in a well-identified web page bearing the title LEGAL a description of each such claim and a description of the party making each such claim in sufficient detail that a user of the Subject Software will know whom to contact regarding the claim. Also, upon gaining such knowledge of any such claim, Recipient must conspicuously include the URL for such web page in the Required Notice, and in the text of any related documentation, license agreement or collateral in which Recipient describes end user's rights relating to the Subject Software. If Recipient obtains such knowledge after it makes Subject Software available to any other person or entity, Recipient shall take other steps (such as notifying appro- priate mailing lists or newsgroups) reasonably calculated to provide such knowledge to those who received the Subject Software. Kinda weird, but I'm not sure it's non-free. 10. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages arising, directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License. Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold SGI and its successors and assigns harmless from and against any loss, liability, damages, costs or expenses (including the payment of reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of (Recipi- ent's use, modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Soft- ware or out of any representation or warranty made by Recipient. Hmm, not sure if there's any sort of consensus on indemnification, or if there's even been discussion of it (other than, er, in the Sun Java thread); this specifically discusses liability arising out of Recipient's use, modification, copying, and distribution, so I suppose it's not unreasonable here that SGI wishes to avoid being held responsible for such things. 12. Miscellaneous. This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unen- forceable by any judicial or administrative authority having proper jurisdic- tion with respect thereto, such provision shall be reformed so as to achieve as nearly as possible the same economic effect as the original provision and the remainder of this License will remain in effect. This License shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States and the State of California as applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within California between California residents. Any liti- gation relating to this License shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdic- tion of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California (or, absent subject matter jurisdiction in such courts, the courts of the State of Cali- fornia), with venue lying exclusively in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys fees and expenses.
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
The CID Font Code Public License is non-free, per the discussion linked to by bug 211765. At the time, Branden couldn't find anything actually under the license. One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils' package, and the full license included in its debian/copyright file, which makes me think the license has been ruled to be DFSG-free in the past. WRONG! Never assume that. It just means the license wasn't properly reviewed. I hate to say it, but I suspect there is a lot of non-free stuff in 'main', simply because most maintainers do not check their licenses carefully. Even the best maintainers. Sections 6 and 7 are the problematic ones, FYI. I believe we don't have consensus on whether section 6 is non-free. The problems are classic, however: 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. May apply export control laws to people in other countries to whom they do not apply. Recipient may not distribute Subject Software that (i) in any way infringes (directly or contributorily) the rights (including patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark or other intellectual property rights of any kind) of any other person or entity, Requires compliance with other random laws in order to be in compliance with the license. or (ii) breaches any representation or warranty, express, implied or statutory, which under any applicable law it might be deemed to have been distributed. Requires compliance with other random laws in order to be in compliance with license. Also way overbroad. The license being revoked because the distributor breached an implied warranty under which the software might be deemed to have been distributed. This seems to eliminate the no, it was NOT distributed with that warranty defense, because if anyone might have deemed it to be, you're screwed. Section 7 is clearly unacceptable: 7. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient at any time has knowledge of any one or more third party claims that reproduction, modification, use, distribu- tion, import or sale of Subject Software (including particular functionality or code incorporated in Subject Software) infringes the third party's intel- lectual property rights, Recipient must place in a well-identified web page bearing the title LEGAL a description of each such claim and a description of the party making each such claim in sufficient detail that a user of the Subject Software will know whom to contact regarding the claim. Also, upon gaining such knowledge of any such claim, Recipient must conspicuously include the URL for such web page in the Required Notice, and in the text of any related documentation, license agreement or collateral in which Recipient describes end user's rights relating to the Subject Software. If Recipient obtains such knowledge after it makes Subject Software available to any other person or entity, Recipient shall take other steps (such as notifying appro- priate mailing lists or newsgroups) reasonably calculated to provide such knowledge to those who received the Subject Software. Notification requirement. Requires creation of a web page. What the hell? Publication of a web page imposes a long-term monetary cost on the person who has to do it, so this is also a fee. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
