Re: Re: Global IP Sound iLBC Public License, v2.0 - IETF Version

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

Hi, Kim Paflias,

I believe you might want the following to contact Apple's legal department.

https://www.apple.com/legal/contact/
On Mar 27, 2016 4:54 PM, "Kim Paflias"  wrote:

> I don't understand all this licensing information but if I have the right
> to refuse it in Anyway I would like to I have numerous files and stuff on
> my phone and Mac Pro book air that take up save and change the commands on
> my Mac if this is the cause or any kind of privacy issues please not I do
> not want to agree with this license due to my privacy
> thank you, kim paflias
> Touch ID only
>

Re: Re: Global IP Sound iLBC Public License, v2.0 - IETF Version

[Kim Paflias]

I don't understand all this licensing information but if I have the right to 
refuse it in Anyway I would like to I have numerous files and stuff on my phone 
and Mac Pro book air that take up save and change the commands on my Mac if 
this is the cause or any kind of privacy issues please not I do not want to 
agree with this license due to my privacy 
thank you, kim paflias
Touch ID only 

Re: Global IP Sound iLBC Public License, v2.0 - IETF Version

[Nathanael Nerode]

2. Covered Code may be Deployed only in compliance with the then-applicable 
IETF Standard, and Modifications must not change the format of the bitstream.
(C) You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code 
and 
distribute the Larger Work as a single product; but You must ensure that the 
requirements of this License, including Section 2.1(B)(2), are fulfilled.

Non-free restriction.  This has to be removed outright to be DFSG-free.  What 
is acceptable is to require a name change or a notice if the code is reused 
in a manner which doesn't comply with the standard or changes the format.
(This would be done in order to reuse the code for entirely different 
purposes.)

2.4 Registration. You must register Your Deployment (non-personal) use of the 
Original Code and acceptance of this License by completing Appendix A and 
returning it to GIPS as indicated (or providing equivalent information to 
GIPS).
Non-free restriction, requires GIPS to be notified (even 50 years in the 
future when GIPS may not exist).

2.5 Your Grants. In consideration of and as a condition to the licenses 
granted to You, You hereby grant to GIPS, under Your applicable patent and 
other intellectual property rights, an unrestricted, non-exclusive, 
worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable license to (a) Your 
Modifications and (b) any error reports or other feedback you provide to GIPS 
regarding the Original Code.
Paired with the definition of Modifications, applies to undistributed 
modifications, which is non-free.

2.7 Derivative Works. If You create or use a modified version of this License 
(which You may only do in order to apply it to code that is not already 
Covered Code governed by this License), You must (a) rename the license and 
(b) otherwise make it clear that Your version of the license contains terms 
which differ from this License.
I'm very pleased that these terms are showing up.  They're much better than 
the old no modification allowed terms we're used to.  Pity they're in 
non-free licenses.

6 TRADEMARKS.
This License does not grant any right or license to use the trademarks or 
trade names “Global IP Sound”, “GIPS”, “iLBC”, “SoundWare”, or any other GIPS 
trademarks, trade names, design marks, or logos (collectively, “GIPS Marks”), 
except that “iLBC” may be used in reference to the IETF Standard. No GIPS 
Marks may be used to endorse or promote products derived from the Original 
Code other than as permitted by and in strict compliance with GIPS's 
trademark usage guidelines.
I'm impressed: this might actually be a DFSG-free trademark clause.

Any litigation relating to this License is 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of 
California, with venue in San Francisco County, California, and You and GIPS 
hereby consent to personal jurisdiction and venue therein with respect to 
this License. 
Unacceptable.  No way I'm travelling to San Fransisco if they sue me.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/

Re: Global IP Sound iLBC Public License, v2.0 - IETF Version

[MJ Ray]

George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I would like to read your comments about the Global IP Sound iLBC Public 
 License, v2.0 - IETF Version - Limited Commercial Use [1] [2]. 
 Please also see the ftpmaster references at #319201. [...]
 Sounds non-free to me since it limits the commercial use at least. 

I agree. Additionally, it forces grant of permission to GIPS, 
discriminates against agents of other businesses, has a choice
of venue clause and the patent licence doesn't follow DFSG.

Incomplete commentary follows:

 1.10 “Personal Use” means use of Covered Code by an individual solely for 
 personal, private, and non-commercial purposes. Use of Covered Code in an 
 individual’s capacity as an officer, employee, member, independent 
 contractor, or agent of a corporation, business, or organization (commercial 
 or non-commercial) does not qualify as Personal Use. [...]

which combines with:

 (A) Personal Use: You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and 
 distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your 
 Personal Use; [...]
 (B) Deployment: You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, and Deploy 
 Covered Code, provided that
 1. You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1(A), and
 2. Covered Code may be Deployed only in compliance with the then-applicable 
 IETF Standard, and Modifications must not change the format of the bitstream.
 (C) You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code 
 and 
 distribute the Larger Work as a single product; but You must ensure that the 
 requirements of this License, including Section 2.1(B)(2), are fulfilled. 
 [...]

Discrimination against impersonal, public and commercial purposes,
because there is no grant for them to create non-standard modified
versions or change the format of the bitstream.

 2.3 Limitations. Except as expressly stated in Section 2.1, no other rights 
 (including patent rights), express or implied, are granted by GIPS. 
 Modifications and Larger Works of GIPS may require additional patent and 
 other licenses from GIPS which GIPS may grant in its sole discretion. [...]

This patent licence seems not to allow derived works to be
distributed under the same licence. If there are applicable
patents, this isn't good enough to meet DFSG.

 2.4 Registration. You must register Your Deployment (non-personal) use of the 
 Original Code and acceptance of this License by completing Appendix A and 
 returning it to GIPS as indicated (or providing equivalent information to 
 GIPS).

Notification requirement. Yippee.

 2.5 Your Grants. In consideration of and as a condition to the licenses 
 granted to You, You hereby grant to GIPS, under Your applicable patent and 
 other intellectual property rights, an unrestricted, non-exclusive, 
 worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable license to (a) Your 
 Modifications and (b) any error reports or other feedback you provide to GIPS 
 regarding the Original Code.

Forced granting of rights to GIPS, even if they aren't a recipient of
the modified version. I see that as a fee and discrimination against
private supply of modified versions.

 3.2 Your Distribution License. You may choose to offer, and to charge a fee 
 for, warranty, support, indemnity, or liability obligations and other rights 
 consistent with the scope of this License (“Additional Terms”) to 
 recipients 
 of Covered Code, provided, however, that: (a) You may do so only on Your own 
 behalf and as Your sole responsibility, and not on behalf of GIPS; (b) You 
 must make it absolutely clear that Additional Terms are offered by You alone, 
 and not by GIPS; and (c) the license may not limit or alter the recipient's 
 rights in Original Code version from the rights set forth in this License. 
 You hereby agree to defend and indemnify GIPS regarding any claims asserted 
 against GIPS relating to any Additional Terms.

Same problem as CDDL, discriminating against support agents of other
people. Why don't they just say not on behalf of GIPS? Why all this
crap against offering services on behalf of others too?

 10.6 Dispute Resolution; Governing Law. This License is governed by the laws 
 of the United States and the State of California. Choice of law rules do not 
 apply, regardless of jurisdiction. Any litigation relating to this License is 
 subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of 
 California, with venue in San Francisco County, California, and You and GIPS 
 hereby consent to personal jurisdiction and venue therein with respect to 
 this License. [...]

Choice of venue, which I regard as ability to cause payment for use.
This choice of law and venue makes the Quebec clause seem odd.

Hope that helps,
-- 
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 

Re: Global IP Sound iLBC Public License, v2.0 - IETF Version

[Dave Hornford]

MJ Ray wrote:

  George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
Choice of venue, which I regard as ability to cause payment for use.
This choice of law and venue makes the Quebec clause seem odd.
  

The Province of Quebec language laws require, amongst other things,
that all legal documentation be available in French and English unless
the contracting parties explicitly agree to do business in one or the
other language.
I expect the original licensor has an office in Quebec and learnt they
needed to do this and applies it automatically.

regards Dave

Re: Global IP Sound iLBC Public License, v2.0 - IETF Version

[MJ Ray]

Dave Hornford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The Province of Quebec language laws require, amongst other things, that 
 all legal documentation be available in French and English unless the 
 contracting parties explicitly agree to do business in one or the other 
 language.

Other countries have similar restrictions on business, but this
licence singles out Quebec for some reason.

 I expect the original licensor has an office in Quebec and learnt they 
 needed to do this and applies it automatically.

Possible and thanks for the suggestion.
http://www.globalipsound.com/about_us/about_us_contact.php mentions
offices in Stockholm, Londonderry NH USA and San Francisco only.

-- 
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]