Re: infos about alien licenses
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:45:46AM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: I don't think that the clause is necessarily a problem, though -- it reads to me more like a slightly more emphatic no-warranty clause, rather than a prohibition against use in any particular field. So what should I do in this case? Contact the upstream and ask him/her to change that license? Or do we accept this? I'll leave that open to discussion here for the moment. Since there hasn't been any dissenting opinion expressed, I'd say that there's no massive objection to the clause as it stands. My advice would be to put in a quiet query to upstream asking if they really think that the extra bit is really needed, since there's a perfectly good warranty disclaimer already, and whether they meant for the clause to be binding or merely advisory. In the meantime, get the packaging sorted out (both the app itself and the dependencies). My guess is that upstream probably boilerplated the template from somewhere, or thought it was a good idea at the time(tm), and will be happy to clarify their intent. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: infos about alien licenses
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. The word 'should' has a fairly straight forward meaning in the English language. This does not present a problem, as far as I can see. It is substantively no different from the standard: Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law. It is a disclaimer telling you they take no responsibility if you use it in a situation that endagers human life or property. No problem. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: infos about alien licenses
Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. The word 'should' has a fairly straight forward meaning in the English language. This does not present a problem, as far as I can see. It is substantively no different from the standard: Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law. It is a disclaimer telling you they take no responsibility if you use it in a situation that endagers human life or property. No problem. Sounds good to me. Thanks for the clarification. cheers, wjl aka Wolfgang Lonien -- Key ID 0x728D9BD0 - public key available at wwwkeys.de.pgp.net Key Fingerprint = A923 2294 B7ED EB3E 2F18 AE56 AAB8 D36A 728D 9BD0 uid Wolfgang Lonien (wjl) like: [EMAIL PROTECTED] We prefer encrypted, text-only email messages here. Thank you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: infos about alien licenses
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:25:54AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. The word 'should' has a fairly straight forward meaning in the English language. I just had a look at 'dict should' and it was a bit more complicated than you make out. There's also the legal English alternative -- there's plenty of words that have different interpretation in legal documents than they do in colloquial usage. Should in legal English has much the same use and meaning as it does in the RFC's - it means roughly 'it would be good if ...' but does not mean 'we require ...'. I understand that you came to the same conclusion, but I wanted to be clear here. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: infos about alien licenses
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: | |-- DCOracle2-cvs.tar.gz- +(ask) | |-- TwistedSNMP-0.3.13.tar.gz - +(ask) | `-- sybase-0.36.tar.gz - +(ask) The DCOracle2/LICENSE.txt reads: Copyright (c) 2000, Digital Creations, Fredericksburg, VA, USA. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: o Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the disclaimer that follows. o Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. o Neither the name of Digital Creations nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. MIT-like. No problems. The TwistedSNMP-0.3.13/license.txt reads: TwistedSNMP, SNMP Protocol for the Twisted Networking Framework Copyright (c) 2003-2005, Michael C. Fletcher, Patrick K. O'Brien All rights reserved. THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The name of the authors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. Again, MIT-like. All good, with the possible exception of the No danger clause, which I think is harmless. while the sybase-0.36/LICENCE reads: Copyright (C) 2002, Object Craft P/L, Melbourne, Australia. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of Object Craft nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. MIT-like. All good. As an aside, I've got packages of python-sybase floating around here somewhere. I never uploaded them to Debian because I have no interest in maintaining them long-term, I just whipped them up for a client one day. I can send them to you if you'd like (and possibly sponsor them into Debian if you want to maintain it yourself). - matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: infos about alien licenses
Hi Matt ( list), Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: | |-- DCOracle2-cvs.tar.gz- +(ask) | |-- TwistedSNMP-0.3.13.tar.gz - +(ask) | `-- sybase-0.36.tar.gz - +(ask) The DCOracle2/LICENSE.txt reads: [...] MIT-like. No problems. Fine :-) The TwistedSNMP-0.3.13/license.txt reads: THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, Yeah. Interestingly (as a side-note), I have read something like this before. It's in the Windows License concerning the use of Sun's Java. I think it means something like: If you use this to steer an airplane and that crashes, don't blame us - we warned you. Not very reassuring IMHO. but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. ... which would be against the policy, right? Hmmm. I wonder if that still could be packaged, and where to - contrib? non-free? The latter, I suppose? [the rest of the license] Again, MIT-like. All good, with the possible exception of the No danger clause, which I think is harmless. Ok... while the sybase-0.36/LICENCE reads: [...] MIT-like. All good. Fine. As an aside, I've got packages of python-sybase floating around here somewhere. I never uploaded them to Debian because I have no interest in maintaining them long-term, I just whipped them up for a client one day. I can send them to you if you'd like (and possibly sponsor them into Debian if you want to maintain it yourself). That would be cool. Thanks for your kind offer. cheers, wjl aka Wolfgang Lonien -- Key ID 0x728D9BD0 public key available at wwwkeys.de.pgp.net Key fingerprint = A923 2294 B7ED EB3E 2F18 AE56 AAB8 D36A 728D 9BD0 we prefer encrypted text-only emails all systems here proudly run Debian GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: infos about alien licenses
Scripsit Wolfgang Lonien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please CC me when answering; I'm not subscribed to Debian-legal. What was your question? The three licenses you quote are all ordinary 3-clause BSD licenses, which are nice and free. -- Henning Makholm The man who catches a meniningococcus is in considerably less danger for his life, even without chemotherapy, than meningococci with the bad luck to catch a man. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: infos about alien licenses
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 06:12:59AM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: The TwistedSNMP-0.3.13/license.txt reads: THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, Yeah. Interestingly (as a side-note), I have read something like this before. It's in the Windows License concerning the use of Sun's Java. I think it means something like: If you use this to steer an airplane and that crashes, don't blame us - we warned you. Not very reassuring IMHO. Practically, though, that's no less than you get with every other piece of software -- free or otherwise. but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. ... which would be against the policy, right? Yes, it would discriminate against fields of endeavour, and hence fail DFSG #mumble. Hmmm. I wonder if that still could be packaged, and where to - contrib? non-free? The latter, I suppose? If it doesn't pass the DFSG (but we can legally distribute it), then it goes in non-free. If it depends on non-free stuff, but is itself free, then it goes in contrib. So twisted-snmp would go in non-free, and the dependent application would go in contrib. I don't think that the clause is necessarily a problem, though -- it reads to me more like a slightly more emphatic no-warranty clause, rather than a prohibition against use in any particular field. As an aside, I've got packages of python-sybase floating around here somewhere. I never uploaded them to Debian because I have no interest in maintaining them long-term, I just whipped them up for a client one day. I can send them to you if you'd like (and possibly sponsor them into Debian if you want to maintain it yourself). That would be cool. Thanks for your kind offer. http://www.hezmatt.org/~mpalmer/tmp/python-sybase_0.37* I don't guarantee a stellar packaging job -- it was a quick whipup for a client. It's not egregiously defective, though. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: infos about alien licenses
Hi Matt list, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 06:12:59AM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: The TwistedSNMP-0.3.13/license.txt reads: THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, Yeah. Interestingly (as a side-note), I have read something like this before. It's in the Windows License concerning the use of Sun's Java. I think it means something like: If you use this to steer an airplane and that crashes, don't blame us - we warned you. Not very reassuring IMHO. Practically, though, that's no less than you get with every other piece of software -- free or otherwise. but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. ... which would be against the policy, right? Yes, it would discriminate against fields of endeavour, and hence fail DFSG #mumble. Hmmm. I wonder if that still could be packaged, and where to - contrib? non-free? The latter, I suppose? If it doesn't pass the DFSG (but we can legally distribute it), then it goes in non-free. If it depends on non-free stuff, but is itself free, then it goes in contrib. So twisted-snmp would go in non-free, and the dependent application would go in contrib. I don't think that the clause is necessarily a problem, though -- it reads to me more like a slightly more emphatic no-warranty clause, rather than a prohibition against use in any particular field. Yes, I see it like this, too. Henning Makholm said that all 3 licenses were BSD-like, and so they're ok for us. But I wasn't sure, that's why I addressed debian-legal before doing any packaging. So what should I do in this case? Contact the upstream and ask him/her to change that license? Or do we accept this? I'll leave that open to discussion here for the moment. Thanks and cheers, wjl aka Wolfgang Lonien -- Key ID 0x728D9BD0 - public key available at wwwkeys.de.pgp.net Key Fingerprint = A923 2294 B7ED EB3E 2F18 AE56 AAB8 D36A 728D 9BD0 uid Wolfgang Lonien (wjl) like: [EMAIL PROTECTED] We prefer encrypted, text-only email messages here. Thank you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
