Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090530071729.gh30...@matthew.ath.cx, Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? Copyright (at least in some important jurisdiction) applies for life + 70 years, so it still applies and would now be held by the author's estate. Copyright in pretty much ALL jurisdictions (ie not including, iirc, places like North Korea) lasts for a *minimum* of 50 calendar years after creation. *minimum* ? Not really. Copyrights disappear when there are no copyright holders (failed bankrupts procedure and lack of heirs, when public entities doesn't take the assets). On some countries (like UK, IIRC) there are also orphaned works. Anyway these cases doesn't make it GPL compatible. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
ha...@volny.cz wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but: 1) It is clear that the author wished his work to be distributed as freely as circumstances allow. Is it really clear? So why did not he distribute the sources? ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
In message 4a253aae.4040...@debian.org, Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090530071729.gh30...@matthew.ath.cx, Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? Copyright (at least in some important jurisdiction) applies for life + 70 years, so it still applies and would now be held by the author's estate. Copyright in pretty much ALL jurisdictions (ie not including, iirc, places like North Korea) lasts for a *minimum* of 50 calendar years after creation. *minimum* ? Not really. Copyrights disappear when there are no copyright holders (failed bankrupts procedure and lack of heirs, when public entities doesn't take the assets). On some countries (like UK, IIRC) there are also orphaned works. Mmmm ... Then why are so many works disintegrating (I'm thinking of films) because no one knows who the copyright holder is, and no one dares copy them? And I don't know about other countries, but (a) I've never heard of orphaned works in the UK, and (b) certainly in the case of lack of heirs, the state takes everything. I don't know what happens for failed bankrupts, but I guess there is some sort of residual or worthless assets rules. And basically, Berne says copyright is a minimum of 50 years, and Berne applies in pretty much all jurisdictions. So if you don't know who the copyright holder is, you're stuffed. Anyway these cases doesn't make it GPL compatible. Of course ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
On Sat, 30 May 2009, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? I'd think that if you lose the source file, then all modifications have to be done using whatever file still exists. That would make whatever file still exists be the preferred form for modification, and therefore source. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
On Sat, 30 May 2009 14:34:26 +0200 Rafael Laboissiere wrote: * Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org [2009-05-30 08:17]: The problem here is that either there is no copyright licence (in which case we can't distribute it, even in non-free), or the blanket GPLv3 applies (which is, I think, reasonable to assume) in which case either we have a source form, in which case it can go in main, or we don't, in which case we can't distribute it, even in non-free as this violates the licence agreement. The post script definitely looks like it was generated from TeX (from reading the PS source) so we really should try and find said source. Alternatively, I think the reading of the GPL would suggest that if you created a derivative work (eg, by machine translating it back to some sort off TeX, or extracting the text and reformatting) then it would be reasonable to distribute _with the preferred form of modification of that derivative work_, which is your new, translated, TeX file. What you wrote above is fully reasonable. Thanks for the suggestion. I agree with Matthew's suggestion, with the usual disclaimers (IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP). -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpIQchql6Irp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
On Sat, 30 May 2009 12:36:21 +0200 (CEST) ha...@volny.cz wrote: [...] 2) It is clear that GPL aims to allow for freedom in manipulation with software. I don't think it implies that should the only source become unavailable due to higher circumstances (authors death), it must stop being distributed. Actually I would argue that this would actually go against the meaning of GNU GPL. I don't think you are reading the GNU GPL the right way. It is my understanding that the meaning of the GNU GPL is precisely that you are *not* allowed to distribute *without* making source code available: as a consequence, if you do *not* have source, you *cannot* redistribute... This stays true *both* before *and* after the death of the copyright holder. Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgps1BgUqaLyq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? Copyright (at least in some important jurisdiction) applies for life + 70 years, so it still applies and would now be held by the author's estate. A simple solution would be to strip the PS file from the tarball and, eventually, create an octave-quartenion-nonfree package containing it. Otherwise, we could generate a LaTeX file that reproduces that PS file. If we do that, what should be the Copyright notice and the licence statement? The problem here is that either there is no copyright licence (in which case we can't distribute it, even in non-free), or the blanket GPLv3 applies (which is, I think, reasonable to assume) in which case either we have a source form, in which case it can go in main, or we don't, in which case we can't distribute it, even in non-free as this violates the licence agreement. The post script definitely looks like it was generated from TeX (from reading the PS source) so we really should try and find said source. Alternatively, I think the reading of the GPL would suggest that if you created a derivative work (eg, by machine translating it back to some sort off TeX, or extracting the text and reformatting) then it would be reasonable to distribute _with the preferred form of modification of that derivative work_, which is your new, translated, TeX file. HTH, Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
In message 20090530071729.gh30...@matthew.ath.cx, Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? Copyright (at least in some important jurisdiction) applies for life + 70 years, so it still applies and would now be held by the author's estate. Copyright in pretty much ALL jurisdictions (ie not including, iirc, places like North Korea) lasts for a *minimum* of 50 calendar years after creation. You can't state the worst case and then assume it applies without knowing anything about the author :-) You can state the probable best case, and then assume it probably applies... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
I'm not a lawyer, but: 1) It is clear that the author wished his work to be distributed as freely as circumstances allow. 2) It is clear that GPL aims to allow for freedom in manipulation with software. I don't think it implies that should the only source become unavailable due to higher circumstances (authors death), it must stop being distributed. Actually I would argue that this would actually go against the meaning of GNU GPL. So I think all can be fixed by an explanatory text in the copyright notice which makes the situation clear. With regards, Hynek Hanke -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
* Paul Wise p...@debian.org [2009-05-30 11:46]: What makes you think that the .ps file is not source code? It was generated with LaTeX. BTW, I suggest that in general Debian packages should have an active upstream maintainer. Do you or someone else intend to take over upstream development of this software? A. S. Hodel was the original author but this package (quartenion) is maintained collectively by the Octave-Forge team and it had been for a long time included in Octave itself, which is actively maintained. My problem is just with the PS documentation file. -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
* Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org [2009-05-30 08:17]: The problem here is that either there is no copyright licence (in which case we can't distribute it, even in non-free), or the blanket GPLv3 applies (which is, I think, reasonable to assume) in which case either we have a source form, in which case it can go in main, or we don't, in which case we can't distribute it, even in non-free as this violates the licence agreement. The post script definitely looks like it was generated from TeX (from reading the PS source) so we really should try and find said source. Alternatively, I think the reading of the GPL would suggest that if you created a derivative work (eg, by machine translating it back to some sort off TeX, or extracting the text and reformatting) then it would be reasonable to distribute _with the preferred form of modification of that derivative work_, which is your new, translated, TeX file. What you wrote above is fully reasonable. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
On Sat May 30 14:33, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: A. S. Hodel was the original author but this package (quartenion) is maintained collectively by the Octave-Forge team and it had been for a long time included in Octave itself, which is actively maintained. My problem is just with the PS documentation file. In which case it may be worth mentioning to them that they are likely failing to meet the terms of the GPL as well. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Rafael Laboissiere raf...@debian.org wrote: I have filed an ITP for octave-quartenion [1], a package from the Octave-Forge Project [2]. Its latest released tarball [3] contains a documentation file doc/quartenion [4] in PostScript format for which no source is available. There is also no Copyright notice in the file itself, and there are no licensing conditions neither, although the DESCRIPTION file [5] claims that the whole package is distributed under the GNU GPL v3+. I think this violates the DFSG. What makes you think that the .ps file is not source code? If it isn't source code but you can transform it into something you now consider source code and will use as the preferred form for modification then in my opinion (IANAL) you can still comply with the GNU GPLv3+ and fall under the DFSG. Otherwise, we could generate a LaTeX file that reproduces that PS file. If we do that, what should be the Copyright notice and the licence statement? It occurs to me that the courts might consider the LaTeX file a derivative work of the PostScript file. Therefore the copyright would be owned by the original author, with possibly additional copyright for the person who did the transformation. The license would obviously continue to be the GNU GPLv3+. I strongly suggest that you talk to people who were associated with upstream to find out if someone has source code or the original author left it on one of his computers. BTW, I suggest that in general Debian packages should have an active upstream maintainer. Do you or someone else intend to take over upstream development of this software? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
