RPC code relicensed (was: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free)
RPC code was relicensed to 3-clause BSD license. The glib commit: http://sources.redhat.com/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=a7ab6ec83e144dafdc7c46b8943288f450f8e320 From: http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html Quote: ... So, we restarted the effort with Oracle, and on August 18, 2010, Wim Coekaerts, on behalf of Oracle America, gave permission for the remaining files that we knew about under the Sun RPC license (netkit-rusers, krb5, and glibc) to be relicensed under the 3 clause BSD license ... From: http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/08/gnulinux-finally-free-software/index.htm Quote: ... But Spot persisted and finally got confirmation in an acceptable form from an Oracle VP, Wim Coekaerts, that permission to make the change had indeed been granted. So, at long last, the licence is changed, glibc is Free software and we can all breathe easy that this can't cause copyright infringement suits against Linux. ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100827212906.gc2...@rivendel
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:35:12 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava: On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava: Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution. The DFSG is indeed in our users best interest -- unless you think that shipping non-free in main helps the users who use those bits, and thus users interest should render the DFSG irrelevant, since the users can benefit. This is a deeply flawed argument. So is saying that not shipping with an RFC implementation is in our users' best interest, or saying that holding up the release is in our users' best interest. Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is often useful to people -- which is why the company is in business. And yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the premise that libre software is better. Do you mean to say that the one and only property about Debian we should be proud of is the fact that it consist of 100% free software? Do you mean to say that the one and only goal we should pursue is to make, and keep, Debian 100% free software? You really must like to see the worlkd in black and white, to so earnestly want to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. It is not an olny goal -- but it certainly is an important one. Indeed, far more important than meeting some release schedule. You know, that would make my life a lot easier. I could stop caring about bugs. Shut up, you -- it's free software, you should be glad about that. Yes, attacking strawmen often makes arguments easier -- but unfortunately for you, I am not going to be drawn so. If you think that this premise is flawed, then I wonder how you passed the philosophy section of the NM process. I passed the philosophy section of the NM process, because I agreed that our users and free software are equally important. Yes, delivering free software is in the best interest of our users. That doesn't mean it's the *only* thing which is in the best interest of our users. And since our Social Contract declares them to be equally important, at times they can be in conflict. I think this is one such occasion. The social contract also says that 100% free software thing, with no if, and, or buts. Curious how you missed that. I agree; however, this is about more than just whether the RPC code is free or not. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't be part of this thread. And you think our users are best served by non-free software? Our users are best served by useful, working software. Even when it is not free? That's not what I said. Oh, wait, I get it. You're saying that the *only* thing we should care about is whether our software is free. All the rest is secondary, not even worth considering. First, we are about freedom. Allowing people to wean themselves off non-free software is an important step to freedom; and thus the goal of delivering only free software in main. I'll have no objection to keeping the non-free sun code in the non free section of the archive, until the GR's work their way through. I thought our users and Free Software were *equal*. No, I'm not Yes, and our users deserve to get to using just free software, and be weaned off the evil proprietary software. There are enough vbenues of getting a fix of the community sapping non dfsg stuff; at least Debian should be a source of the pure, librè software. saying we should ignore the fact that the RPC code is non-free, if that is the case. Yes, I'm saying we should take care not to over-react, and to make sure whatever action we take is in the best interest of our users. The best interest of our users is a 100% free Debian distribution. If that means to ship with non-free code in a core part of our distribution, then so be it. No, I'm not saying we should ship sarge at the set date at all cost, even if that means shipping with non-free parts inside; I'm just saying we should consider all alternatives, and do what's best for our users. I do not consider shipping non free software to be in the best long term interest of our users, and anyway, the social contract shall have to be amended to remove the 100% free stuff before you can ship the non-free software in main. Someone has to make the judgement call. It happened to be aj. If you're not happy with his decision, you're free to use the powers given to you by our constitution. Or to fix the problem, as I suggested in my original post. Although, in hindsight, I could've been a bit more polite. Hmm. I think I may do that. You think that we should ask the secretary to
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava: On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava: Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution. The DFSG is indeed in our users best interest -- unless you think that shipping non-free in main helps the users who use those bits, and thus users interest should render the DFSG irrelevant, since the users can benefit. This is a deeply flawed argument. So is saying that not shipping with an RFC implementation is in our users' best interest, or saying that holding up the release is in our users' best interest. Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is often useful to people -- which is why the company is in business. And yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the premise that libre software is better. Do you mean to say that the one and only property about Debian we should be proud of is the fact that it consist of 100% free software? Do you mean to say that the one and only goal we should pursue is to make, and keep, Debian 100% free software? You know, that would make my life a lot easier. I could stop caring about bugs. Shut up, you -- it's free software, you should be glad about that. If you think that this premise is flawed, then I wonder how you passed the philosophy section of the NM process. I passed the philosophy section of the NM process, because I agreed that our users and free software are equally important. Yes, delivering free software is in the best interest of our users. That doesn't mean it's the *only* thing which is in the best interest of our users. And since our Social Contract declares them to be equally important, at times they can be in conflict. I think this is one such occasion. Either way results in an action in conflict with the social contract. The question is: what's the least of the two evils? Or, who gets to decide what is the users best interest? That is another way to put it. That's a judgement call we have to make, and it may well be different if you make it, as compared to if I make it. Especially since it's not clearly defined anywhere what's actually 'in the best interest of our users'. As a consumer of food, my predilection as a child was overwhelmingly in favour of fast food -- tasty, convenient, and yet, according to my health care professional, inordinately bad for me. Non free software, despite its allure, is, in my opinion, bad for the users. I agree; however, this is about more than just whether the RPC code is free or not. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't be part of this thread. And you think our users are best served by non-free software? Our users are best served by useful, working software. Even when it is not free? That's not what I said. Oh, wait, I get it. You're saying that the *only* thing we should care about is whether our software is free. All the rest is secondary, not even worth considering. I thought our users and Free Software were *equal*. No, I'm not saying we should ignore the fact that the RPC code is non-free, if that is the case. Yes, I'm saying we should take care not to over-react, and to make sure whatever action we take is in the best interest of our users. If that means to ship with non-free code in a core part of our distribution, then so be it. No, I'm not saying we should ship sarge at the set date at all cost, even if that means shipping with non-free parts inside; I'm just saying we should consider all alternatives, and do what's best for our users. Someone has to make the judgement call. It happened to be aj. If you're not happy with his decision, you're free to use the powers given to you by our constitution. Or to fix the problem, as I suggested in my original post. Although, in hindsight, I could've been a bit more polite. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 16:35 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is often useful to people -- which is why the company is in business. And yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the premise that libre software is better. Do you mean to say that the one and only property about Debian we should be proud of is the fact that it consist of 100% free software? I doubt it. He didn't say that. Do you mean to say that the one and only goal we should pursue is to make, and keep, Debian 100% free software? I doubt it. He (once again) didn't say that. He said that we must keep Debian 100% free software --- just like our social contract says. I passed the philosophy section of the NM process, because I agreed that our users and free software are equally important. [] I think this is one such occasion. Please explain how to reconcile including non-free software in Debian (for the good of the children^W^Wour users) with clause 1 of the Social Contract. I agree; however, this is about more than just whether the RPC code is free or not. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't be part of this thread. It *should* just be about if the code is free or not; that is what Clause 1 says. Oh, wait, I get it. You're saying that the *only* thing we should care about is whether our software is free. All the rest is secondary, not even worth considering. No. There are certainly other requirements for software to be in Debian, but if the software is not free, it can't be in Debian. So says the first clause of the Social Contract. If that means to ship with non-free code in a core part of our distribution, then so be it. Our users are our co-first priority. However, that can't override our _requirements_ which include producing a distribution that is entirely free software as well as never [making Debian] depend on an item of non-free software. We must satisfy our priorities without violating our Social Contract. [ Manoj: I apologize if you get two copies of this; I just copied the OP's cc field. ]
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 23:35]: Of course not. We can put it off forever, and it looks like we may just do that. The people closest to the affected code are not interested in researching the issue, the Release Manager isn't interested in researching the issue, and Release Manager has not posited a set of circumstances under which he will not ignore the Sun RPC license problem, come hell or high water. Has anyone spoken with Sun yet? Perhaps they would release their code in a more free way which would be best what could happen. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On 2003-09-08, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you asked the glibc team (the actual upstream) what they think? Or the FSF? I would start that way. I sent a short note to the FSF on Sunday (as a private individual, interested in Debian) setting out the situation and asking what if they had more information. I have not heard back yet. Obviously it makes sense to coordinate any replacement of the RPC code with the glibc team, if it turns out to be necessary. Peace, Dylan
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:16:18 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]: I think you are mixing up archived copy of old releases and releasing. Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some weight; and there are large numbers of people who wait for a release, and we have a reputation for ethics that I would not like to see tarnished for the merely sake of meeting a release date. To get it clear: You prefer that because the Sun RPC-code might be non-free, we do not release sarge? This would be a real disservice to our users, without gaining anything except more backports and more work wasted. What are we here together for? Are we just a conduit to feed software to the mindless horde of software consumers, and our priorities are to keep the users satiated, no matter what the provenance of the software, or are we here to build a community around a free OS? I signed up for the latter, and we do not release the OS until it meets the basic requirements of our goal -- keeping Debian 100% free software. So yes, I would not compromise our principles, and I would much rather we held back the release until we are ready. You know, that used to be the Debian motto -- we released quality free software, and we released when we were ready. As opposed to shovelling in whatever and meeting release deadlines. manoj -- Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava: Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution. The DFSG is indeed in our users best interest -- unless you think that shipping non-free in main helps the users who use those bits, and thus users interest should render the DFSG irrelevant, since the users can benefit. This is a deeply flawed argument. So is saying that not shipping with an RFC implementation is in our users' best interest, or saying that holding up the release is in our users' best interest. Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is often useful to people -- which is why the company is in business. And yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the premise that libre software is better. If you think that this premise is flawed, then I wonder how you passed the philosophy section of the NM process. Either way results in an action in conflict with the social contract. The question is: what's the least of the two evils? Or, who gets to decide what is the users best interest? That's a judgement call we have to make, and it may well be different if you make it, as compared to if I make it. Especially since it's not clearly defined anywhere what's actually 'in the best interest of our users'. As a consumer of food, my predilection as a child was overwhelmingly in favour of fast food -- tasty, convenient, and yet, according to my health care professional, inordinately bad for me. Non free software, despite its allure, is, in my opinion, bad for the users. And you think our users are best served by non-free software? Our users are best served by useful, working software. Even when it is not free? manoj -- Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. Fred Brooks, Jr. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:52:39AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). You've tried to make that argument before; go dig in the archives for the reasons why it's wrong. Actually, I haven't done such a thing. Oh, that was Steve Langasek. Anyway, the answer is in that same paragraph; it only applies unless that component itself accompanies the executable - clearly irrelevant to us. No, you're referring to section 3. I'm referring to section 2, specifically, Bah. These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based ^ on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of ^ this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Same thing, different words. We can't use this clause because we _do_ distribute the whole. Plus section 2 isn't the issue anyway, it's section 6 that makes it incompatible. I don't think section 6 can make it incompatible. For reference: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. The RPC code is not based on glibc; rather, glibc is based in part on the RPC code. Section 6 only applies to the Program, or any work based on the Program. The combined work of both the glibc and the RPC code is clearly affected by section 6 of the GPL, and since the RPC code is supposed to be MIT/X11 when part of a whole, it is not incompatible; ^^ This is essentially false; when part of a whole, it is[0] supposed to be MIT/X11 plus one extra restriction not found in the GPL. Hence the incompatibility when you want to distribute the combined work - like we do. [0] Assuming the apocryphal license change really occurred -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp1GNXvqrv3n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 02:35]: On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:03:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: I would say that replacal of the Sun-code should be a release goal for sarge+1, except if the matter could be clarified with Sun or someone stands up right now to actually write the code. Why? We can just put off fixing it then, too. It seems there will always be more important things to do than ensure that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software.[1] No. You're misinterpreting my opinion. In my opinion Debian Should become 100% Free Software. Perhaps I try a clarification (and I'm still not convinced that the Sun RPC-code is not DFSG, and/or that it is not ok to distribute it with the glibc, but I know that it's the other way round: We must be satisfied that code is DFSG-free and distributable, so I'm not discussing about this now): I can see several lines of action now, roughly as follows (this list is not orderd by preference): 1. Don't care about the issue any more, or get permission by sun (permission would be the best of course) 2. Release sarge now with the code, and sarge+1 in about a year with code with another license 3. Replace the code with something else, and release sarge after appropriate testing time, i.e. in about a year. 4. Remove the code from sarge, and release sarge without RPC, and add free code to sarge+1. 5. Remove the code from woody, sarge and sid and add free code to sarge+1. This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release name stable is, release name in []): now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04 1 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] sun[sarge+1] 2 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] new[sarge+1] 3 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[woody] new[sarge] 4 sun[woody] sun[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1] 5 sun[woody] none[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1] So, the question is which of these ways is acceptable. If way 3 is acceptable to you (replace the code before release of sarge), what is the problem with way 2? I can't see the difference between the two ways in relation to freedom of Debian. But, going 2 instead of 3 has the advantage that a lot of other problems of our users are solved. So, either be consequent and remove this code from woody r2 (and/or relase sarge without RPC-code soon), or let this code stay in sarge. I can't see any benefit of delaying sarge while distributing this actual piece of code in stable. I hope that my considerations are more understandable now. It's not about compromising the freeness of Debian. It's about removing a (possible) compromise with the least damage. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release name stable is, release name in []): now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04 1 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] sun[sarge+1] 2 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] new[sarge+1] 3 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[woody] new[sarge] 4 sun[woody] sun[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1] 5 sun[woody] none[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1] Your analysis presumes that the act of releasing is not meaningful. Of course the old (presumably, for the sake of argument) non-DFSG-free code will continue to be available in old product. We didn't know it was non-DFSG-free then. We do now. If we make a release containing this non-DFSG-free code at any point after our awareness of this fact has been established, then we are *knowingly* violating clause one of the Social Contract, instead of unknowingly violating it. I regard that as a significant distinction. I guess you don't. In other news, Manoj Srivastava has pointed out that an alternative implementation of RPC, DCE RPC, has been released under the LGPL. He knows more about its feature set than I do, though, so I'll let him speak to that. -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpzv0x5QdpJE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:38:18 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: In other words, it is OK to ship non-free code in main, as long as there is no free implementation. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether or not this is free; and I'm certainly not saying it's OK to ship non-free code in main. What I *am* saying is that we *are* already shipping this way, and that not removing the code would not intensify the problem. However, postponing the release any further would certainly intensify the other problem, namely, that we still don't have another release this long after the release of woody. We made a mistake, through ignorance of the problem, in the past. We are not now ignorant of the issue. We should not make the same mistake again, since this time it shall be willful. Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution. The DFSG is indeed in our users best interest -- unless you think that shipping non-free in main helps the users who use those bits, and thus users interest should render the DFSG irrelevant, since the users can benefit. This is a deeply flawed argument. In this particular case, with code being so important to a major part of our users, given that our users and the DFSG are, per the Social Contract, equally important, and given that the piece of code in dispute *is* already in stable, I'm saying we should not hold up the release to write a replacement. However, if *you* are willing to write a replacement, and are willing to hold up the release for that, I will support you, but then you should make sure the code is at least as good as the RPC code which *is* in glibc right now. Not doing so would be a disservice to our users, and not worth the effort. I see. Some non free software is too inconvenient to give up, so we should whore out our principles, until someone can write a free replacement that is completely equivalent. In other words, convenience and utility of non-free software trumps principles everytime. sarcastic It would probably hold up the release for yet another year or two, but who cares about such things anyway? /sarcastic I think I do care more for libre software than I do about releases and market share. Compromising our principles for quick releases buys us what, exactly? Do we have a marketting department now? Do you really think this is the stance of the project? Not the way you put it, no. I am happy to hear you say that. If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. Right, how dare you imply that we care about shipping only free code in main. Again, that's not what I'm saying. For one thing, I'm not convinced the code is non-free, but perhaps that's just me; I won't make any argument about that. However, in this particular case, at this moment in time, pulling the code out would, again, be a disservice to our users. But you did not say that. Had you stated reasons why the code should be free, I would not have had any concerns: but you chose instead to brow beat people trying to bring up concerns about copyright violations, and tried to buttress your case with flimsy arguments of how convenience ought to come before principles. We are all about expedience, not about freedom. Actually, we are about both (if I understand 'expedience' correct from the context; don't have a dictionary nearby) Haste does not trump freedom, in my book. [...] We can't ship without RPC in glibc (that would be a severe disservice to our users, as it would break NFS, parts of Gnome (FAM, for instance, on which parts of Gnome depend, uses RPC), and most likely some other major parts of our distribution as well; and per the Social Contract, our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). Indeed. Some non free code is too important not to ship. That's not what I'm saying. Some code of which the freeness is being challenged, is already being shipped. Then make that case. Do not throw up red herrings about how things are too important not to ship, no matter what. Not shipping such non free code would be a major disservice to our users, Actually, pulling that code out would be a major disservice to our users. It's already in there. Our users expect it to be there, or at least, they expect a functionally equivalent part of code there. Our users also expect us to act with a degree of correctness, and who depend on our ethics. If the code is truly free, then sure, there is no problem. State your case. If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve. and would lose Debian
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:10:10 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:31:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Yeah, because there is *no* difference whatsoever between: We're sorry, upstream did not make clear to us the full licensing terms of their software. Now that we have found out, we've fixed it as quickly as possible. and Yeah, upstream didn't tell us before, so we shipped it then and since we did before, we're just going to ignore our principles and ship it for another two years. Hope you don't mind! If you do, either write a free replacement or 'shut the fuck up.' Oh, and there is a legal difference between unknowingly infringing on a copyright and knowingly infringing on one. You do realize that all stable releases are archived? Once a package is out in a stable release, we don't ever stop distributing it. And since this code is already in the current stable release, making a new one with the same code does indeed not intensify the problem. I think you are mixing up archived copy of old releases and releasing. Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some weight; and there are large numbers of people who wait for a release, and we have a reputation for ethics that I would not like to see tarnished for the merely sake of meeting a release date. manoj -- Most people can't understand how others can blow their noses differently than they do. Turgenev Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]: I think you are mixing up archived copy of old releases and releasing. Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some weight; and there are large numbers of people who wait for a release, and we have a reputation for ethics that I would not like to see tarnished for the merely sake of meeting a release date. To get it clear: You prefer that because the Sun RPC-code might be non-free, we do not release sarge? This would be a real disservice to our users, without gaining anything except more backports and more work wasted. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava: Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution. The DFSG is indeed in our users best interest -- unless you think that shipping non-free in main helps the users who use those bits, and thus users interest should render the DFSG irrelevant, since the users can benefit. This is a deeply flawed argument. So is saying that not shipping with an RFC implementation is in our users' best interest, or saying that holding up the release is in our users' best interest. Either way results in an action in conflict with the social contract. The question is: what's the least of the two evils? That's a judgement call we have to make, and it may well be different if you make it, as compared to if I make it. Especially since it's not clearly defined anywhere what's actually 'in the best interest of our users'. In this particular case, with code being so important to a major part of our users, given that our users and the DFSG are, per the Social Contract, equally important, and given that the piece of code in dispute *is* already in stable, I'm saying we should not hold up the release to write a replacement. However, if *you* are willing to write a replacement, and are willing to hold up the release for that, I will support you, but then you should make sure the code is at least as good as the RPC code which *is* in glibc right now. Not doing so would be a disservice to our users, and not worth the effort. I see. Some non free software is too inconvenient to give up, so we should whore out our principles, I'm not suggesting that. But making sure our software is useful is part of our principles, too. [...] sarcastic It would probably hold up the release for yet another year or two, but who cares about such things anyway? /sarcastic I think I do care more for libre software than I do about releases and market share. Again, I couldn't care less about market share. However, I do care about what's in the best interest of our users. If our users go away to a different distribution because that one is not useless to them, surely some choice we made was not in their best interest. [...] Actually, pulling that code out would be a major disservice to our users. It's already in there. Our users expect it to be there, or at least, they expect a functionally equivalent part of code there. Our users also expect us to act with a degree of correctness, and who depend on our ethics. If the code is truly free, then sure, there is no problem. State your case. If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve. I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to happen *now*. and would lose Debian important market share, and we can't possibly let scruples stand in the way of market share, can we? I couldn't care less about market share. I do care about the social contract, though, which says 'Our priorities are our users and free software'. And you think our users are best served by non-free software? Our users are best served by useful, working software. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 18:05]: On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release name stable is, release name in []): now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04 1 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] sun[sarge+1] 2 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] new[sarge+1] 3 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[woody] new[sarge] 4 sun[woody] sun[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1] 5 sun[woody] none[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1] Your analysis presumes that the act of releasing is not meaningful. My analysis just says what a user gets when using debian stable main. I count what actually happens. Not what code name is shown. If we make a release containing this non-DFSG-free code at any point after our awareness of this fact has been established, then we are *knowingly* violating clause one of the Social Contract, instead of unknowingly violating it. I regard that as a significant distinction. I guess you don't. I do make this destinction. But the discussed question is not: Are we going to release sarge now, but without Sun RPC? But we discuss: Are we delaying sarge for a long time periode so that there can be other RPC-code included in sarge. And I wish that we just release twice instead of delaying sarge. Our users would get the free code as fast as with only releasing once, but have the advantages of sarge earlier. Even if we cannot agree, I hope that you admit that I don't want to compromise the freeness of Debian. But that we're measuring freeness on different occasions: I just don't measure it only on the date doing the release, but what a users gets on any day with software from stable/main. In other news, Manoj Srivastava has pointed out that an alternative implementation of RPC, DCE RPC, has been released under the LGPL. He knows more about its feature set than I do, though, so I'll let him speak to that. If there is a implementation available that can be implemented in the release time for sarge, that would be great news. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:16:18PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]: I think you are mixing up archived copy of old releases and releasing. Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some weight; and there are large numbers of people who wait for a release, and we have a reputation for ethics that I would not like to see tarnished for the merely sake of meeting a release date. To get it clear: You prefer that because the Sun RPC-code might be non-free, we do not release sarge? *Is* non-DFSG-free on its face, with nothing but hearsay evidence of anything to the contrary. -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgpEv5zCFxUS2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve. I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to happen *now*. Of course not. We can put it off forever, and it looks like we may just do that. The people closest to the affected code are not interested in researching the issue, the Release Manager isn't interested in researching the issue, and Release Manager has not posited a set of circumstances under which he will not ignore the Sun RPC license problem, come hell or high water. -- G. Branden Robinson| Men are born ignorant, not stupid. Debian GNU/Linux | They are made stupid by education. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Bertrand Russell http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpobEgDNyKWL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve. I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to happen *now*. Of course not. We can put it off forever, and it looks like we may just do that. The people closest to the affected code are not interested in researching the issue, the Release Manager isn't interested in researching the issue, and Release Manager has not posited a set of circumstances under which he will not ignore the Sun RPC license problem, come hell or high water. Have you asked the glibc team (the actual upstream) what they think? Or the FSF? I would start that way.
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 00:50]: On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. We can't ship without RPC in glibc Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues this severe. We _do_ ship stable with this issue. Now, and if no-one is asking sun or producing code, also in two month, and in a year, ... Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:49:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:19:32 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold up the release. When did we decide that release dates were more important than the DFSG? We didn't. At least not officially. But to 'some' of us, it does matter. /sarcastic In any case, the solution is easy (as I said in my mail, in the part you conveniently snipped away): stop the bickering, get your hands out of their sleeves, and write that RPC code. Free of bugs, and standards-compliant, mind you. In other words, it is OK to ship non-free code in main, as long as there is no free implementation. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether or not this is free; and I'm certainly not saying it's OK to ship non-free code in main. What I *am* saying is that we *are* already shipping this way, and that not removing the code would not intensify the problem. However, postponing the release any further would certainly intensify the other problem, namely, that we still don't have another release this long after the release of woody. Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution. If you want Dewbian to stop shjipping non-free code, then you better write the free implementation -- not just any free implementation, mind you -- Free of bugs, and standards-compliant, too. That, also, is not what I'm saying. Well, almost. In this particular case, with code being so important to a major part of our users, given that our users and the DFSG are, per the Social Contract, equally important, and given that the piece of code in dispute *is* already in stable, I'm saying we should not hold up the release to write a replacement. However, if *you* are willing to write a replacement, and are willing to hold up the release for that, I will support you, but then you should make sure the code is at least as good as the RPC code which *is* in glibc right now. Not doing so would be a disservice to our users, and not worth the effort. sarcastic It would probably hold up the release for yet another year or two, but who cares about such things anyway? /sarcastic Do you really think this is the stance of the project? Not the way you put it, no. If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. Right, how dare you imply that we care about shipping only free code in main. Again, that's not what I'm saying. For one thing, I'm not convinced the code is non-free, but perhaps that's just me; I won't make any argument about that. However, in this particular case, at this moment in time, pulling the code out would, again, be a disservice to our users. We are all about expedience, not about freedom. Actually, we are about both (if I understand 'expedience' correct from the context; don't have a dictionary nearby) [...] We can't ship without RPC in glibc (that would be a severe disservice to our users, as it would break NFS, parts of Gnome (FAM, for instance, on which parts of Gnome depend, uses RPC), and most likely some other major parts of our distribution as well; and per the Social Contract, our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). Indeed. Some non free code is too important not to ship. That's not what I'm saying. Some code of which the freeness is being challenged, is already being shipped. Not shipping such non free code would be a major disservice to our users, Actually, pulling that code out would be a major disservice to our users. It's already in there. Our users expect it to be there, or at least, they expect a functionally equivalent part of code there. and would lose Debian important market share, and we can't possibly let scruples stand in the way of market share, can we? I couldn't care less about market share. I do care about the social contract, though, which says 'Our priorities are our users and free software'. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgp5gUOVIr5eg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. We can't ship without RPC in glibc Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues this severe. We are already doing that. Continuing to do so will not intensify that problem (although if the consensus is that the code is non-free, that should be fixed; but if we do so, we should do it properly); however, replacing the code at this moment in time *will* intensify another problem for our users. One should not try to fix one problem at the cost of creating (or intensifying) another. There would be a difference if we would be *avoiding* one problem, but that's not what's happening here. our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). You've tried to make that argument before; go dig in the archives for the reasons why it's wrong. Actually, I haven't done such a thing. You're probably mixing me up with someone else. Also, without a date, keyword, or thread subject, that's pretty hard to find. And even if I had enough information to find it, I'm not going to waste *my* time digging the archives to understand *your* point; so unless you come up with an URL to the specific post that explains your point, I'm just going to assume you've made this up, and will feel free to ignore it. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpaC9fcjQczT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 11:50]: However, if *you* are willing to write a replacement, and are willing to hold up the release for that, I will support you, but then you should make sure the code is at least as good as the RPC code which *is* in glibc right now. Not doing so would be a disservice to our users, and not worth the effort. sarcastic It would probably hold up the release for yet another year or two, but who cares about such things anyway? /sarcastic I would say that replacal of the Sun-code should be a release goal for sarge+1, except if the matter could be clarified with Sun or someone stands up right now to actually write the code. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). You've tried to make that argument before; go dig in the archives for the reasons why it's wrong. Actually, I haven't done such a thing. Oh, that was Steve Langasek. Anyway, the answer is in that same paragraph; it only applies unless that component itself accompanies the executable - clearly irrelevant to us. Plus section 2 isn't the issue anyway, it's section 6 that makes it incompatible. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpzsQN4GihPK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 06:09 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. We can't ship without RPC in glibc Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues this severe. We are already doing that. Continuing to do so will not intensify that problem Yeah, because there is *no* difference whatsoever between: We're sorry, upstream did not make clear to us the full licensing terms of their software. Now that we have found out, we've fixed it as quickly as possible. and Yeah, upstream didn't tell us before, so we shipped it then and since we did before, we're just going to ignore our principles and ship it for another two years. Hope you don't mind! If you do, either write a free replacement or 'shut the fuck up.' Oh, and there is a legal difference between unknowingly infringing on a copyright and knowingly infringing on one.
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:31:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Yeah, because there is *no* difference whatsoever between: We're sorry, upstream did not make clear to us the full licensing terms of their software. Now that we have found out, we've fixed it as quickly as possible. and Yeah, upstream didn't tell us before, so we shipped it then and since we did before, we're just going to ignore our principles and ship it for another two years. Hope you don't mind! If you do, either write a free replacement or 'shut the fuck up.' Oh, and there is a legal difference between unknowingly infringing on a copyright and knowingly infringing on one. You do realize that all stable releases are archived? Once a package is out in a stable release, we don't ever stop distributing it. And since this code is already in the current stable release, making a new one with the same code does indeed not intensify the problem. Richard Braakman
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). You've tried to make that argument before; go dig in the archives for the reasons why it's wrong. Actually, I haven't done such a thing. Oh, that was Steve Langasek. Anyway, the answer is in that same paragraph; it only applies unless that component itself accompanies the executable - clearly irrelevant to us. No, you're referring to section 3. I'm referring to section 2, specifically, These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Plus section 2 isn't the issue anyway, it's section 6 that makes it incompatible. I don't think section 6 can make it incompatible. For reference: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. The RPC code is not based on glibc; rather, glibc is based in part on the RPC code. Section 6 only applies to the Program, or any work based on the Program. The combined work of both the glibc and the RPC code is clearly affected by section 6 of the GPL, and since the RPC code is supposed to be MIT/X11 when part of a whole, it is not incompatible; however, the RPC code *by itself* is not, nor can it be. Of course, usual IANAL rules apply. In any case, it's clear that there is no consensus on this subject yet. My point -- that holding up the release for this problem, which it well may be, is not a good idea -- still stands. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpWCaKXQ8lkG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 09:56:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:20:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: For the Release Manager: What standard do you set for the repudiation of the aforementioned hearsay? Why is he setting it at all? I don't think that giving the RM final say in questions of DFSG-freeness is a wise precedent to create. It doesn't appear to have been given; it appears to have been taken. -- G. Branden Robinson|I had thought very carefully about Debian GNU/Linux |committing hara-kiri over this, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] |I overslept this morning. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Toshio Yamaguchi pgp1hhnGAyqWq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:34:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 09:56:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:20:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: For the Release Manager: What standard do you set for the repudiation of the aforementioned hearsay? Why is he setting it at all? I don't think that giving the RM final say in questions of DFSG-freeness is a wise precedent to create. It doesn't appear to have been given; it appears to have been taken. Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold up the release. If you think it should, then please, by all means, write a replacement for the Sun RPC code, release it under the GPL, and convince the glibc maintainers to use that (untested) of code. Which will likely hold up the release for another couple of months. I'm sure none of us wants that. If I'm wrong, and you do want that, then stop the bickering, and start hacking that RPC code. After all, this lit may be discussing licenses on a daily basis, that doesn't give you any authority either. Thanks. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpCkvZMOML9E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:34:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 09:56:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:20:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: For the Release Manager: What standard do you set for the repudiation of the aforementioned hearsay? Why is he setting it at all? I don't think that giving the RM final say in questions of DFSG-freeness is a wise precedent to create. It doesn't appear to have been given; it appears to have been taken. Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold up the release. When did we decide that release dates were more important than the DFSG? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpgtu8HgH34h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold up the release. When did we decide that release dates were more important than the DFSG? We didn't. At least not officially. But to 'some' of us, it does matter. /sarcastic In any case, the solution is easy (as I said in my mail, in the part you conveniently snipped away): stop the bickering, get your hands out of their sleeves, and write that RPC code. Free of bugs, and standards-compliant, mind you. If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. We can't ship without RPC in glibc (that would be a severe disservice to our users, as it would break NFS, parts of Gnome (FAM, for instance, on which parts of Gnome depend, uses RPC), and most likely some other major parts of our distribution as well; and per the Social Contract, our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). Thanks. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpOyf2mGGCaC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. We can't ship without RPC in glibc Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues this severe. our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). You've tried to make that argument before; go dig in the archives for the reasons why it's wrong. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpJPRhA8Acz0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:19:32 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold up the release. When did we decide that release dates were more important than the DFSG? We didn't. At least not officially. But to 'some' of us, it does matter. /sarcastic In any case, the solution is easy (as I said in my mail, in the part you conveniently snipped away): stop the bickering, get your hands out of their sleeves, and write that RPC code. Free of bugs, and standards-compliant, mind you. In other words, it is OK to ship non-free code in main, as long as there is no free implementation. If you want Dewbian to stop shjipping non-free code, then you better write the free implementation -- not just any free implementation, mind you -- Free of bugs, and standards-compliant, too. Do you really think this is the stance of the project? If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. Right, how dare you imply that we care about shipping only free code in main. We are all about expedience, not about freedom. Dear me. I must have been mistaken all along. We can't ship without RPC in glibc (that would be a severe disservice to our users, as it would break NFS, parts of Gnome (FAM, for instance, on which parts of Gnome depend, uses RPC), and most likely some other major parts of our distribution as well; and per the Social Contract, our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). Indeed. Some non free code is too important not to ship. Not shipping such non free code would be a major disservice to our users, and would lose Debian important market share, and we can't possibly let scruples stand in the way of market share, can we? manoj -- We have nowhere else to go... this is all we have. Margaret Mead Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
[Mailing Debian glibc package maintainers and Debian Release Manager in their official capacities. My apolgies for the duplicate for those of you who are also subscribed to debian-legal, which is CCed.] On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:17:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] No, the burden of proof is on those who advocate a change, and it's not been met. I wish you had been more forthcoming with your understanding of the removal of DFSG-non-free works from main way back around URL: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2001/debian-ctte-200108/msg0.html . The fact that I could cite the presence of the DFSG-non-free chunk of XFree86 source in Debian main all the way back (AFAIK) to its very first packaging for the Debian Project as precedent for its retention would definitely have saved us all an irritating flamewar. To recapitulate: * The Sun RPC license fails the DFSG on its face, as it withholds essential freedoms from people who do not develop software using it for themselves. * No advocate of an alternative interpretation of this license which would render it DFSG-free has been able to do better that cite second-rumors of some sort of clarification being made in the past, somewhere. * To date, at least in the logs of this bug report as far as I can tell, no advocate of retaining the SUN RPC code in Debian main has identified a single person from whom this license-clarifying hearsay was uttered, which makes it impossible to verify even the fact that such claims were made. * Former inclusion of a DFSG-non-free work in Debian main due to ignorance was not a good enough reason to retain it there in August 2001, and to my knowledge we haven't changed our Social Contract such that it is now. Given the above, all we have are bare assertions that the SUN RPC code is somehow DFSG-free despite its explicit terms, and all questions as to how exactly this is so have been dismissed as unimportant. This is no way to run a railroad, or a Free Software distribution. Is any member of the GNU C Library maintenance team in Debian attempting to research this problem via their upstream contacts? If not, do any members of this team object to another Debian Developer doing so? For the Release Manager: What standard do you set for the repudiation of the aforementioned hearsay? You are placing the Developers in the interesting posititon of proving a negative, and obviously we cannot poll everyone in the world who's ever had anything to do with the SUN RPC license or the conditions of its inclusion in the GNU C Library (this is mainly due to the low likelihood that a comprehensive list of such people can be made). For example, which of the following (either singly or in combination) would serve as repudiation of the alleged license clarification?: * Sun Microsystems, Inc. asserts that the license terms under which the code appears in the GNU C Library are the only ones under which the code is available; * A person with commit rights to the GNU C Library source repository upstream asserts that no such clarification has been made; * No person with commit rights to the GNU C Library source repository who responds to our queries is able to claim firsthand knowledge of any such clarification; * Every person who has ever had commit rights to the GNU C Library source repository swears out an affidavit that they know of no other terms under which the SUN RPC code is available for distribution with the GNU C Library. (Feel free to add your own criteria; as with many endeavors to prove a negative, such a list is going to be open-ended.) -- G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Oscar Wilde http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpOMUboCiS23.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:48:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Ah, so in general, when people find a flagrant DFSG violation in main, the best thing they can do is just leave it alone. Otherwise, it's a change, and past inclusion is always sufficient present for future retention. No, the best thing to do is to *contact the upstream copyright holder*. That's true whether it's flagrant or not, and given neither myself nor the glibc maintainers are convinced, it's hardly clear that it is. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?''
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:20:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: For the Release Manager: What standard do you set for the repudiation of the aforementioned hearsay? Why is he setting it at all? I don't think that giving the RM final say in questions of DFSG-freeness is a wise precedent to create. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpNY3027gIUm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:15:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: You ground your argument on second hand reports of clarifications in the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish first-hand clarifications? Yes. If you're too lazy to be bothered doing that, don't expect anyone else -- either the release manager nor the glibc maintainers -- to care about your ravings. The burden of proof is on those who claim it's been clarified to come up with evidence of such. No, the burden of proof is on those who advocate a change, and it's not been met. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpYCtmvciPsp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:17:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:15:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: You ground your argument on second hand reports of clarifications in the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish first-hand clarifications? Yes. If you're too lazy to be bothered doing that, don't expect anyone else -- either the release manager nor the glibc maintainers -- to care about your ravings. The burden of proof is on those who claim it's been clarified to come up with evidence of such. No, the burden of proof is on those who advocate a change, and it's not been met. Ah, so in general, when people find a flagrant DFSG violation in main, the best thing they can do is just leave it alone. Otherwise, it's a change, and past inclusion is always sufficient present for future retention. Got it. -- G. Branden Robinson|If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Debian GNU/Linux |pound of antipasto, would they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |cancel out, leaving him still http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hungry? -- Scott Adams pgpsAGsYGnD6G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote to Jeremy Hankins: On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: [I'm taking this off-list, as this is no longer really relevant there.] Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licensed to FSF under Sun RPC license, not under GPL. So, GPL irrelevant there. If someone takes GPL code and Sun RPC code and puts them together to form a new work that work is what's known as a derived work. It is not very accurate defintion. Simply puts them together do not always create derivative work. *Both* licenses must be simultaneously satisfied in order for the resulting (derived) work to be distributed. No. *Both* license is irrelevant there. *Only* license to the combined derived work is relevant. Not _you_, not _distributors_ or _users_ of GLIBC, but only GLIBC _developers_ should satisfy the terms of Sun RPC license. So the GPL most certainly is relevant.
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:07:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote: Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, opportunistic bastards who have no qualms about filing suits with no legal basis for no other reason than to jack up their stock price and give themselves an out from a company with no marketable assets? No, I'm saying that companies change. SCO didn't use to be like that. SCO used to be Caldera, which had bought the original SCO. The original SCO used, AFAIK, reputable tactics to sell its version of Unix. Companies will do what best suites their share holders. We shouldn't rely on corporate goodwill to protect us; instead, we should rely on legal documents like licenses. [IANAL; TINLA.] I don't believe the current lawsuits initiated by SCO have any legal merit; so if the danger from Sun is analogous, I believe the threat of Sun going berzerk and filing frivolous lawsuits is out of scope for this mailing list. We most definitely *should* rely on legal documents like licenses, and ignore the spectre of being sued for something we didn't do, or that wasn't against the law. If Sun, like SCO, is a party to the GPL or the LGPL by virtue of having distributed code they received under that very license, we have a good reason to think we have a valid license from them for any code they own which has been distributed in this fashion, and we also have a good reason to think that if they decided to become sue-happy, they would quickly be met with a countersuit. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpbNgmQEaWbf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). Licensing of the whole work does not imply by default the licensing of the every part of this work under the same license. It is not imply even licensing of a part of work at all. GPL specifically guarantees, that you can distribute under terms of GPL any work, based on GPL-ed work. SUN RPC is a part of GLIBC, but it is not a work, based on GLIBC. So, GPL is not guarantees, nor that you distribute it at all, nor that you distribute it under GPL. Section 2.b of the GPL: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Section 2 talks about the creation of derived works, which is what the FSF is doing when they include the Sun RPC code. When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licensed to FSF under Sun RPC license, not under GPL. So, GPL irrelevant there.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is, well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages and the connection is still opaque to me.) [snip] One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new original work of authorship. If that is the case, the license could claim that you must commit ritual suicide and the work would still be free. But I don't think it would be a good idea for Debian to depend on the work not being copyrightable when clearly Sun thinks it is. 2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the GPL? Maybe. GPL defines work based on the Program twice: First, it clearly refers to derivative work under copyright law -- The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law. -- Second, it refer only to modify itself -- You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above -- Under first definition, all OK. Under second - maybe not. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new original work of authorship. If that is the case, the license could claim that you must commit ritual suicide and the work would still be free. But I don't think it would be a good idea for Debian to depend on the work not being copyrightable when clearly Sun thinks it is. I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable. Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc code? I don't see how that's relevant. Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is, well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages and the connection is still opaque to me.) [snip] One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new original work of authorship. If that is the case, the license could claim that you must commit ritual suicide and the work would still be free. But I don't think it would be a good idea for Debian to depend on the work not being copyrightable when clearly Sun thinks it is. I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable. 2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the GPL? Maybe. GPL defines work based on the Program twice: First, it clearly refers to derivative work under copyright law -- The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law. -- Second, it refer only to modify itself -- You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above -- Under first definition, all OK. Under second - maybe not. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is, well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages and the connection is still opaque to me.) IMHO. Work need not be completely independent to be original. It is enough, iа there a some original contribution in it. There is a 1) SUN RPC - supposedly, original, copyrighted bu Sun. 2) GLIBC - original as well, because of major original contribution, made by GLIBC developers. 3) modifiication of (2) literally equivalent to (1) One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new original work of authorship. Assuming that the reported clarification is accurate (i.e., BSD except that you can't distribute the original by itself), there are two questions to be answered: 1) Can you take a work based on the Sun RPC code and further modify it to be exactly like the Sun RPC code, and distribute that? No 2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the GPL? Maybe. GPL defines work based on the Program twice: First, it clearly refers to derivative work under copyright law -- The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law. -- Second, it refer only to modify itself -- You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above -- Under first definition, all OK. Under second - maybe not. In order for the code to be GPL compatible the answer to one of those questions must be Yes. MHO, of course, is that the more likely yes answer is to be found from (1), as (2) is clearly false. In fact, if the answer to (1) is no, I have trouble seeing how it passes the DFSG at all.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable. Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc code? I don't see how that's relevant. Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). Licensing of the whole work does not imply by default the licensing of the every part of this work under the same license. It is not imply even licensing of a part of work at all. GPL specifically guarantees, that you can distribute under terms of GPL any work, based on GPL-ed work. SUN RPC is a part of GLIBC, but it is not a work, based on GLIBC. So, GPL is not guarantees, nor that you distribute it at all, nor that you distribute it under GPL.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license. Do you have a proof for this permission? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]: But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license. Do you have a proof for this permission? Huh? I'm assuming you transposed 'would' and '_this_ license' in your second sentence. But even then I'm not sure I understand it. I never said that the GPL was applied to the Sun RPC code. I said that it must be distributed under the terms of the GPL -- meaning that the Sun RPC license must match the terms provided in the GPL. Otherwise it can't be distributed. (Hrm. Or could it? If the FSF made the modification, being the copyright holder, they needn't do so under the requirements of 2.b of the GPL. So perhaps *they* can still distribute it But that wouldn't make much difference, as no one else would be able to modify it or link it with GPL code.) -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). Licensing of the whole work does not imply by default the licensing of the every part of this work under the same license. It is not imply even licensing of a part of work at all. GPL specifically guarantees, that you can distribute under terms of GPL any work, based on GPL-ed work. SUN RPC is a part of GLIBC, but it is not a work, based on GLIBC. So, GPL is not guarantees, nor that you distribute it at all, nor that you distribute it under GPL. Section 2.b of the GPL: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Section 2 talks about the creation of derived works, which is what the FSF is doing when they include the Sun RPC code. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license. Do you have a proof for this permission? Well, Sun distributes glibc, doesn't it? -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote: Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, opportunistic bastards who have no qualms about filing suits with no legal basis for no other reason than to jack up their stock price and give themselves an out from a company with no marketable assets? No, I'm saying that companies change. SCO didn't use to be like that. SCO used to be Caldera, which had bought the original SCO. The original SCO used, AFAIK, reputable tactics to sell its version of Unix. Companies will do what best suites their share holders. We shouldn't rely on corporate goodwill to protect us; instead, we should rely on legal documents like licenses.
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There have been efforts in the U.S. to undo the effects of _Feist_ through legislation. One example is the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act[1]. (I don't think that bill passed.) However, such a law is also probably not Constitutional. The argument in Feist is that there is no author at all of such a raw collection of informtion. The Constitution only permits copyright to extend to *authors*. The Commerce Clause might also be used, of course, but there a whole new First Amendment issue would arise, and quite possibly nix the law for that reason. Thomas
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. I'll have to pass on this one, as I've never heard of anybody being sued for this at all, but I counter-invite you to come up with an example of anybody coming up with the same expression of the same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and *losing*. Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. I don't think any case law exists (or ever will exist) on the subject, so we'll have to work with the statutes - which, at least in the US and EU, are fairly clear that independant innovation is a valid way to avoid copyright issues. No, independent innovation is a valid way of *gaining* copyright on a work. The way you demonstrate it's independent from other works, is by demonstrating it's *different* to other works. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgp62NKCclbZ3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. What you both seem to be arguing here is a question of fact, not of law. The question that is asked is: Was the work copied or not? That's what juries (or judges when there is no jury) do in civil cases. They try the facts.[1] You would be hard pressed to get a jury to agree that two identical thousand page novels were developed independently. However, if a jury decides that they were, there is no law stating that copyright infringement has to have taken place, or the works didn't have enough originality to be copyrighted in the first place. We return you now to your regularly scheduled thread. Don Armstrong 1: At least in the US system. I can't speak for the legal systems of any other country with any degree of acuracy. -- Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. -- Oscar Wilde http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpB5tsnWBen3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is, well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages and the connection is still opaque to me.) Assuming that the reported clarification is accurate (i.e., BSD except that you can't distribute the original by itself), there are two questions to be answered: 1) Can you take a work based on the Sun RPC code and further modify it to be exactly like the Sun RPC code, and distribute that? 2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the GPL? In order for the code to be GPL compatible the answer to one of those questions must be Yes. MHO, of course, is that the more likely yes answer is to be found from (1), as (2) is clearly false. In fact, if the answer to (1) is no, I have trouble seeing how it passes the DFSG at all. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:13:04PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another work which happens to be identical to the original Sun RPC code. In such a case, there are two possible interpretations under copyright that must be considered: The rest of the argument holds based on this hypothesis. Unfortunately for your argument, the hypothesis is false - incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work, distributing that to a second person, who subsequently refines it further is clearly a derivative work of the original Sun RPC code. It's not independant creation at all. These are therefore not two possible interpretations under copyright. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpI5yy8MF9xl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:09:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: * Copyright requires the protected subject to be original. I think that principle is unique to the U.S.; in fact, that's the whole *point* of this subthread! I think it's not fundamental to copyright, and definitely not in the Berne convention, but I think that nonetheless it is shared by other countries too - at least in some form. The EU directive on computer program copyright appears to be equivalent, if not exactly the same. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpv3SLIlm1D7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:13:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. What you both seem to be arguing here is a question of fact, not of law. The question that is asked is: Was the work copied or not? Well, sort of. Anthony is arguing that it was copied. I am arguing that *if* it was not copied, there has been no copyright violation. Anthony then repeats No, it was copied. I'm not sure what he thinks this accomplishes. I have an endless supply of hypothetical scenarios where it was not copied, regardless of how many he changes. Any one of them demonstrates how the license is incompatible with the GPL. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp8H11b8324K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: ... You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. AFAIK, this is called lack of originality|creativity and there a lot of cases worldwide. At least I can remember several cases for the last decade only in Russia. If you google 'lack of originality copyright', you probably get some examples yourself. Of course, if you can independently reinvent the same work, it prove that work unoriginal and, therefore, does not deserve copyright protection at all. Because of that, sides often prefer not to wait judge's verdict, but settle the case out-of-court.
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: Branden Robinson wrote: If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being grounded on sweat-of-the-brow arguments. In actual fact, very little IP law in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that. If I ridiculed US law for not supporting database rights, I apologize. However it is important to realize that database rights *are* based on a sweat-of-the-brow argument. And again, since they have nothing to do with copyright law, they do not need to be based on the Berne Convention, the Copyright Clause or other principles of copyright law. Mm. Some comment. Please note, that at least in several countries (at least Russia, Ukraine, Latvia but, probably, much more) databases _can_ be copyrightable. As compilations under the terms of Berne convention (Art 2, p 5). But, only, if they are constitute intellectual creations (the Convention term, corresponds to original work of authorship in the US law) itself. Of course, there may be _other_ laws (or special articles in law as for Latvia), which cover all databases, both original and unoriginal.
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Fedor Zuev wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: If I ridiculed US law for not supporting database rights, I apologize. However it is important to realize that database rights *are* based on a sweat-of-the-brow argument. And again, since they have nothing to do with copyright law, they do not need to be based on the Berne Convention, the Copyright Clause or other principles of copyright law. Mm. Some comment. Please note, that at least in several countries (at least Russia, Ukraine, Latvia but, probably, much more) databases _can_ be copyrightable. Original databases are also copyrighted in Europe. There has to be originality in the selection, arrangement etc. This is pretty much like Feist in the USA, and as you note it is required to be like this under Berne. Independently from copyright protection, a database can be protected under the Database Regulation. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Op di 26-08-2003, om 22:09 schreef Branden Robinson: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: * Copyright requires the protected subject to be original. I think that principle is unique to the U.S.; I wrote that sentence only after checking my course papers, so no, it's not unique to the U.S. in fact, that's the whole *point* of this subthread! I don't know about you, but _my_ point was that there's a difference between copyright law and database law; and that while copyright requires originality, database law *does* *not*. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? -- Henning Makholm What has it got in its pocketses?
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of
someone incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing
it to a second person, who subsequently refines this work to create
yet another work which happens to be identical to the original Sun
RPC code. In such a case, there are two possible interpretations
under copyright that must be considered:
{
Provably independent creation of a work identical to another,
pre-existing work that enjoys copyright status is not an
infringement of the first work's copyright.,
Creation of an identical work, even if provably independent (no
copying took place from the original work), still infringes the
copyright of the earlier work.
}
The problem here is the provably independent -- by hypothesis the
work is based in part on the original Sun RPC code. So Sun's terms,
along with those of the GPL, still apply. So the first option is
clearly irrelevant.
Under a regime where independent creation of a given expression is a
copyright infringement, the only way the GPL can be internally
consistent is if it does *not* require authors to relinquish their
right to pursue infringements against the copyright of their
original, independent work; otherwise, the paragraphs cited above
are meaningless, and actually leave an author who chooses to
distribute his code under the GPL with no right at all (or no
practical means of enforcement) to control the creation of copies of
the original work, only the right to create new derivative works and
license (or not license) them under terms of his choice.
I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this (single!) sentence. On the
face of it you seem to be saying that someone who licenses something
under the GPL ought to be able to come along later and add extra
restrictions to the license, and that RMS could not possibly have
intended otherwise when the GPL was written.
If the GPL
really did require this, we would have a problem, because the
copyright holder of the Sun RPC code hasn't granted us this
permission. However, I don't believe that this is the intended
meaning of the GPL; rather, I understand the paragraphs above to
have the plain meaning that the GPL does *not* contest the copyright
of the original code, and therefore code whose license bears a
special provision regarding its disposition when in isolation is GPL
compatible.
It's a good thing the GPL doesn't contest the copyright of the
original code, because it would lose. Instead, if there is a
conflict, no distribution is possible. I completely fail to see how
the section of the GPL you quoted is relevant.
The Sun RPC code is *still* licensed under Sun's terms when it is
distributed as part of a GPL work. But the GPL says to the
distributor (in essence): License all portions of the work to
distributees under the terms of the GPL, with no extra restrictions.
If you cannot, don't distribute. Clearly, don't distributed X block
of code by itself is a restriction not found in the GPL, therefore
it's not GPL compatible.
Of course, there may or may not have been a clarification, I don't
know. Though I certainly distrust getting it third (or more) hand.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that Sun has a problem with
the code being distributed as part of a GPL work.
As is often said, law is not like programming; I have no algorithm
that can tell me which of the above legal outcomes actually
corresponds to the state of law in any given jurisdiction.
True. But my understanding is that traditionally d-l has erred on the
side of caution. That would suggest that if there is doubt we should
seek to clarify that doubt before assuming that there's no problem.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun, the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers. See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html . You should also note that SCO does (or at least did) offer copies of the Linux kernel to both their customers and to the world at large, under the GPL. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:07:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun, the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers. See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html . You should also note that SCO does (or at least did) offer copies of the Linux kernel to both their customers and to the world at large, under the GPL. Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, opportunistic bastards who have no qualms about filing suits with no legal basis for no other reason than to jack up their stock price and give themselves an out from a company with no marketable assets? Not a position that holds much promise for the future of Free Software in general. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgptqdNhVSDYN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Utah :-) Richard Braakman
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Indeed. I'm glad to see the disposition of #181493 is in such assertive hands. -- G. Branden Robinson|It is the responsibility of Debian GNU/Linux |intellectuals to tell the truth and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |expose lies. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Noam Chomsky pgpFEGJNRUy2V.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Trade Secrets work like this in some countries, and you can even tell people about them and still claim them to be your Trade Secret. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:03:13PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Utah :-) Not what you had in mind, but damnit, now I'm going to have to go watch _Raising Arizona_ again. :) Maybe it was Utah... -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgprpfyNud2Cx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: [database protection] Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the creator to control the creation of copies of the work. That's not a very accurate definition of copyright, is it? If it involves controlling copies, surely there's copyright involved as well? Of course it's accurate. That's what copyright *means*. There are quite a few differences between copyright on the one hand, and database protecting laws on the other: s/copyright/the set of local laws labelled copyright/ Naturally the database directive isn't commonly referred to as a copyright. If it were, then someone might catch on that it's completely inconsistent with the rest of copyright law, and wonder why databases should enjoy such special protection. So the law is very carefully positioned as being separate from copyright; its purpose is, nevertheless, to control the creation of copies of works. * If you create a database, you have the right to - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database. Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a database :-) I don't understand this. It's self-evident to me that you have the right to not provide information to people if you so choose. How does this part of the law change anything? - Control the first sale inside the EU. However, you cannot forbid further sales; once the database has been sold inside the EU (with the permission of the creator of the database, obviously), the creator loses his right to control further selling of the database. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is not the case for copyrighted works. It is the case under any reasonable copyright regime. There are efforts now by various copyright holders to restrict the right of first sale through the enactment of shrink wrap licenses with the buyer, but at least in the US, copyright law still says that you can re-sell a copy of a work that's in your possession. You just can't copy it. Copyright isn't just about controlling who gets to copy what. It's also about protecting the original author. Under *your* copyright regime. In any case, those particular features would be more accurately described by the French term droit d'auteur rather than copyright. In English at least, the term copyright pretty clearly refers to the creation of copies. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpfChBhxn77S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: * If you create a database, you have the right to - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database. Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a database :-) I don't understand this. It's self-evident to me that you have the right to not provide information to people if you so choose. How does this part of the law change anything? It doesn't. However, if it wouldn't be present, it would. It's a required part of the law to make it effective. - Control the first sale inside the EU. However, you cannot forbid further sales; once the database has been sold inside the EU (with the permission of the creator of the database, obviously), the creator loses his right to control further selling of the database. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is not the case for copyrighted works. It is the case under any reasonable copyright regime. There are efforts now by various copyright holders to restrict the right of first sale through the enactment of shrink wrap licenses with the buyer, but at least in the US, copyright law still says that you can re-sell a copy of a work that's in your possession. You just can't copy it. Hm. I wasn't too clear here, then. My course clearly states that once it's sold, you have the right to sell copies, too; the original creator does not have the right to restrict you to sell copies anymore. The difference between 'sale' and 'license' might be involved here, though, I'm not sure. As said, IANAL. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpTlsCuFFOXt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: [database protection] Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the creator to control the creation of copies of the work. That's not a very accurate definition of copyright, is it? If it involves controlling copies, surely there's copyright involved as well? Of course it's accurate. That's what copyright *means*. Well, that may be so, but it does not mean you can apply all copyright law principles to database rights. There are other laws that give people rights to restrict copying, for example design patents, utility models or masks for chips. Naturally the database directive isn't commonly referred to as a copyright. If it were, then someone might catch on that it's completely inconsistent with the rest of copyright law, and wonder why databases should enjoy such special protection. So the law is very carefully positioned as being separate from copyright; its purpose is, nevertheless, to control the creation of copies of works. True. But my point was that you cannot use the criteria used in copyright law to determine whether a database has database rights. It is a separate law, and so must be interpreted in its own right. * If you create a database, you have the right to - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database. Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a database :-) I don't understand this. It's self-evident to me that you have the right to not provide information to people if you so choose. How does this part of the law change anything? The law forbids you to extract data from my protected database and to redistribute this data. It also forbids you to provide your own front-end to my database. Copyright isn't just about controlling who gets to copy what. It's also about protecting the original author. Under *your* copyright regime. In any case, those particular features would be more accurately described by the French term droit d'auteur rather than copyright. In English at least, the term copyright pretty clearly refers to the creation of copies. Unfortunately the legal meaning of copyright has gone way beyond the right to make copies. But maybe we should use droit d'auteur, copyright and database rights as three different terms to refer to different legal concepts. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Branden Robinson wrote: If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being grounded on sweat-of-the-brow arguments. In actual fact, very little IP law in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that. If I ridiculed US law for not supporting database rights, I apologize. However it is important to realize that database rights *are* based on a sweat-of-the-brow argument. And again, since they have nothing to do with copyright law, they do not need to be based on the Berne Convention, the Copyright Clause or other principles of copyright law. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: So, this license is specific to be used only as part of a product or programm. You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine) is based on: 'developed by the user' This phrase read conservatively ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports of clarifications (BSD, but can't use the original literally) by the copyright holder, and the copyright holder's (lack of) response to copious reuse and redistribution. As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun, the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers. See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html . If anyone on -legal believes clarifications are necessary or would be helpful, please feel free to get them from Sun. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgp0LDoL0Tf8r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe', but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under the terms of the GPL. This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them) You're wrong, and we'll ignore anywhere where you may be right. Nice to see we're working towards consensus. You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpNIzMNiSjRM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#181493: Info received (was Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free)
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s) and to other interested parties to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): GNU Libc Maintainers debian-glibc@lists.debian.org If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem, please send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: This phrase read conservatively ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports of clarifications (BSD, but can't use the original literally) by the copyright holder, and the copyright holder's (lack of) response to copious reuse and redistribution. It would not surprise me that this was the case. If someone could just point to a first hand report of such a clarification, or someone who says that they talked to sun and got it clarified, that would satiate me about this issue. [We still might be wrong, but at least we've operatead on good faith.] As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun, the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers. See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html . The inability to distribute it alone doesn't bode well for L/GPL compatibility. I'm not convinced that Sun's offering of glibc systems really circumvents the issue, but I presume that someone could make a convincing argument for it. If anyone on -legal believes clarifications are necessary or would be helpful, please feel free to get them from Sun. Perhaps upstream knows better about this issue? Surely the FSF got clarification from their legal team before including this code? If their (FSF's) legal team believes there is no problem with the code being under L/GPL (ie, they've made changes to it or got clarification) then we should be able to ignore the SunRPC license and just proceed as if it were totally L/GPL. (Heh. I've totally forgotten what license this part of glibc even has!) Don Armstrong -- A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'... -- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpqIabBYgZxE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. This is not a fair request, at least within the U.S., because such cases will tend to get settled out-of-court with a gag order on the parties forbidding disclosure of the terms of the settlement. For example, it is at least plausible that this maybe been the case in the USL v. BSDI (a.k.a. ATT v. UCB) lawsuit. We still don't know what was admitted to by whom under that settlement. Computer source code, because of its formal nature, is particularly *likely*, in fact, to lead to such instances that you ridicule as vanishingly unlikely. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. Ah, the argument from personal incredulity. -- G. Branden Robinson| It just seems to me that you are Debian GNU/Linux | willfully entering an arse-kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | contest with a monstrous entity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse. pgpm7pmJVwCxK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: * Copyright requires the protected subject to be original. I think that principle is unique to the U.S.; in fact, that's the whole *point* of this subthread! -- G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley pgpEkecMKKwuc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:16:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: So, this license is specific to be used only as part of a product or programm. You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine) is based on: 'developed by the user' This phrase read conservatively ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports of clarifications (BSD, but can't use the original literally) by the copyright holder, and the copyright holder's (lack of) response to copious reuse and redistribution. [...] If anyone on -legal believes clarifications are necessary or would be helpful, please feel free to get them from Sun. You ground your argument on second hand reports of clarifications in the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish first-hand clarifications? Well, I haven't heard of any such clarification being made, so we're down to the credibility of the claimants. Who has asserted to you the existence of these clarifications? Have these people any stake in the existence of such claims? The Sun RPC fails the DFSG on its face. The burden of proof is on those who claim it's been clarified to come up with evidence of such. This is the converse of the old UWash Pine license issue, where UWash took a license that was DFSG-free on its face and interpreted it in a non-free way. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpCSbQYGCsH5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au: You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. Different people independently coming up with the same expression would perhaps be evidence for there being insufficient originality for there to be any copyright in the work. A case where this might arise would be translations of a short poem. A translation of a haiku would normally be covered by copyright, but it is not inconceivable that two people could independently come up with identical translations of the same haiku, particularly if both people do a dozen versions each.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like
`solitaire.exe',
but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under
the terms of the GPL.
This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless
you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright
behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them)
You're wrong, and we'll ignore anywhere where you may be right.
Nice to see we're working towards consensus.
You have founded your argument upon laws which are inimical to
copyleft licenses, and which do not apply throughout the US or EU -
and which we still haven't seen any concrete examples of.
I can't rebut this any more than I can rebut an argument that says
But if local law prohibits commercial use of software, then
non-commercial-use-only clauses do not add any extra restrictions and
are therefore both DFSG-free and compatible with the GPL.
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access
to the original work.
I'll have to pass on this one, as I've never heard of anybody being
sued for this at all, but I counter-invite you to come up with an
example of anybody coming up with the same expression of the same
copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and
*losing*. I don't think any case law exists (or ever will exist) on
the subject, so we'll have to work with the statutes - which, at least
in the US and EU, are fairly clear that independant innovation is a
valid way to avoid copyright issues.
Furthermore, I invite you to find a country where laws which support
your position actually exist. Otherwise we'll have to dismiss your
argument as handwaving.
More handwaving, for your entertainment:
The set of all possible relevant legal statuses of the Sun RPC code is
as follows:
{
The Sun RPC code is not an independent, copyrightable work in its own
right, or does not enjoy copyrighted status.,
The Sun RPC code is an independent, copyrightable work in its own
right, and enjoys a copyrighted status.
}
If the code does not contain sufficient original expression that it
would be copyrightable, then the Sun RPC license does not matter; no one
is bound by it, and it can simply be ignored.
If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone
incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a
second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another
work which happens to be identical to the original Sun RPC code. In
such a case, there are two possible interpretations under copyright that
must be considered:
{
Provably independent creation of a work identical to another,
pre-existing work that enjoys copyright status is not an infringement
of the first work's copyright.,
Creation of an identical work, even if provably independent (no
copying took place from the original work), still infringes the
copyright of the earlier work.
}
In the first case, the original terms of the Sun RPC code no longer
matter. So long as we have no intention of taking the original Sun RPC
code and distributing it independently (I imagine we don't have a copy
to do so with even if we wished), we can do anything we want to with the
code, because it has been successfully laundered by passing through
glibc as permitted by the original license.
In the second case, we would have to consider the language of the GPL,
which says:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
Under a regime where independent creation of a given expression is a
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: There have been efforts in the U.S. to undo the effects of _Feist_ through legislation. One example is the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act[1]. (I don't think that bill passed.) Lobbyists apparently tried to get it bought a few years in a row, but were unsuccessful. The following URL has a ton of information and links: http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/database.html I suspect that rather than give up, the database interests have merely changed tactics. Price is no object when you stand to reap a government-protected monopoly windfall. Ain't the free market great? -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpnHNEqUrMl9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case: But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove everything but the sunrpc code isn't one of them. Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe', but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under the terms of the GPL. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpFzJqyDaI8N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if it isn't organized in a clever fashion. This is regarded as breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on EU copyright law, and breathtakingly wrong by Americans on this list who are well up on U.S. Copyright law. Uh, not really. You can protect databases, but they're not covered by copyright law. The protection is available for every group of data which is ordered in some fashion (that includes cabinet files filled with paper data cards, as long as they're ordered, e.g. in an alphabetical way), and it consists of a protection for a period of 15 years after the last update to the database, which forbids *complete* reproduction but explicitely allows unlimited quoting from the database, as long as you mention your sources. At least that's how things are in Belgium; there could be little differences in other EU members. The rationale for this is that it takes quite an effort to create a substantially large database, just as it takes quite an effort to write a computer program or an essay, and that this deserves protection equally well. The difference, however, is that the protection for databases hasn't gone mad the way copyright law has (i.e., it's still 15 years, no more). -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgp3TrAugLhwR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030824 23:35]: On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless Debian itself is developing the product or program using Sun RPC. Which we are, viz The Debian Distribution. ...which means the license violates either DFSG 5, DFSG 6, or DFSG 8. Wrong. If the fact that we *are* the Debian Project or *are* a group of developers of products or programs are facts that render us compliant with the license, then the license is not DFSG-free. No. If the fact that we are the *Debian* Project would allow us the use, it would violate DFSG 8. But in fact we're allowed to use it because we are the Debian *Project*. This is _not_ Debian specific, as we would also allowed to use it under the very same conditions if we are a big money making company, or are the Gentoo Project, or ... So, this license is specific to be used only as part of a product or programm. This is not worse than the Artistic License. There is no hint or even proof that this License is Debian-specific, so it complies to DFSG 8. (That I would like another license more is not topic of discussion. Topic is whether the RPC-code complies to DFSG, or if distribution glibc is a RC-bug.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: So, this license is specific to be used only as part of a product or programm. You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine) is based on: 'developed by the user' This phrase read conservatively (eg. reserving the rights not specifically granted by the license to the copyright holder) indicates that those who do not develop a product or a program containing SunRPC do not have permision to license or distribute SunRPC code. If someone can dig up where Sun clarifies the meaning of the license to mean MIT/X11+not alone, (or better, just MIT/X11) that would indicate that Sun was merely sloppy on the wording of the license. Furthermore, as a slight nitpick, the 'part of a product or program developed by the user' only applies to distribution or licensing, not modification, copying, or use. Don Armstrong -- There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their REAL earnings to the IRS. -- The B.O.F.H.. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpL1zyjdo1u4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case: But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove everything but the sunrpc code isn't one of them. Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe', but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under the terms of the GPL. This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpXqqnCj9ytE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:06:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if it isn't organized in a clever fashion. This is regarded as breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on EU copyright law, and breathtakingly wrong by Americans on this list who are well up on U.S. Copyright law. Uh, not really. You can protect databases, but they're not covered by copyright law. The protection is available for every group of data which is ordered in some fashion (that includes cabinet files filled with paper data cards, as long as they're ordered, e.g. in an alphabetical way), and it consists of a protection for a period of 15 years after the last update to the database, which forbids *complete* reproduction but explicitely allows unlimited quoting from the database, as long as you mention your sources. At least that's how things are in Belgium; there could be little differences in other EU members. Same here, pretty much. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpNXLeVtqPJ1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of reverse engineering and originality as a relevant concept to copyright. In other jurisdictions, copyrights more closely resemble patents, and independent innovation is no defense to a claim of copyright infringement. Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free software can work at all with laws like that. Do you have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries. I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans. [I can't think of anything in UK copyright law that would behave this way for software]. I'm pretty certain that reverse engineering is explicitly permitted by an EU directive nowadays, which would trump any freaky national laws like that. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp7O1nGWoLm1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans. Can you substantiate that? I don't remember any such ridicule. Richard Braakman
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free software can work at all with laws like that. Do you have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries. I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans. That talked about databases, which is a separate legal right that has nothing to do with copyright. And yes, that was purely a lobbyist push by database producers. Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if it isn't organized in a clever fashion. You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on such a database if you can prove a substantial investment in time, effort or money for its creation. European countries also have trademarks, which you can get even without being creative and original. It's a different law. This is regarded as breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on EU copyright law, and breathtakingly wrong by Americans on this list who are well up on U.S. Copyright law. That's because most Europeans realize it was a separate Directive that established database rights. You keep seeing it as a copyright thing and applying copyright standards. Of course that's going to produce absurd results. Nevertheless, computer programs are definitely not covered by the database directive and so cannot claim database protection. That means you're back at the 1991 computer program directive, which explicitly puts software under copyright. And independent re-creation is allowed under European copyright law. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of reverse engineering and originality as a relevant concept to copyright. In other jurisdictions, copyrights more closely resemble patents, and independent innovation is no defense to a claim of copyright infringement. Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free software can work at all with laws like that. Do you have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries. I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans. [I can't think of anything in UK copyright law that would behave this way for software]. I'm pretty certain that reverse engineering is explicitly permitted by an EU directive nowadays, which would trump any freaky national laws like that. It's fundamental in EU copyright law anyway: A computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation. No other criteria shall be applied to determine its eligibility for protection. -- Directive 91/250/EEC, article 1, paragraph 3 It seems to me that this permits independent innovation (just because my creation happens to be the same as yours, does not change the fact that it is my original creation), so we're clear in the US and EU. While not directly relevant, this is also interesting, from the preamble: Whereas, in respect of the criteria to be applied in determining whether or not a computer program is an original work, no tests as to the qualitative or aesthetic merits of the program should be applied -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpEnTynkrxgN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free software can work at all with laws like that. Do you have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries. I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans. That talked about databases, which is a separate legal right that has nothing to do with copyright. And yes, that was purely a lobbyist push by database producers. Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if it isn't organized in a clever fashion. You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on such a database if you can prove a substantial investment in time, effort or money for its creation. European countries also have trademarks, which you can get even without being creative and original. It's a different law. Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the creator to control the creation of copies of the work. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpWNnuQkZQQx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans. Can you substantiate that? I don't remember any such ridicule. I'm pretty sure I'm remembering the word lists argument. Looking for posts to this list with aspell in the subject line might turn it up. If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being grounded on sweat-of-the-brow arguments. In actual fact, very little IP law in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that. It's not generally relevant to either copyright or patent law in the U.S. I guess it sort of applies to trademark law, where commercial interests face a use it or lose it situation. However, they don't have to sweat much to get awarded a trademark in the first place, so maybe it fails there too. I suspect that sweat-of-the-brow principles actually discourage the cultivation of an intellectual commons rather than reinforcing one. That isn't to say I find the U.S. system preferable. No place in the world appears to be a terribly good environment for intellectual communitarianism. -- G. Branden Robinson| The power of accurate observation Debian GNU/Linux | is frequently called cynicism by [EMAIL PROTECTED] | those who don't have it. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- George Bernard Shaw pgpWmA5OJxTsR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if it isn't organized in a clever fashion. You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on such a database if you can prove a substantial investment in time, effort or money for its creation. European countries also have trademarks, which you can get even without being creative and original. It's a different law. Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right creator to control the creation of copies of the work. More to the point: this law is specific to databases, and does not apply to computer programs. And even for databases, it's hard to make it stick. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpQqIGafhZSN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: [database protection] Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the creator to control the creation of copies of the work. That's not a very accurate definition of copyright, is it? If it involves controlling copies, surely there's copyright involved as well? There are quite a few differences between copyright on the one hand, and database protecting laws on the other: * Copyright requires the protected subject to be original. You can't take a book, or even a number of books, and put that under copyright; there is no such restriction for a database. * For database protection, it is required that the acquisition, control or presentation of the database shows a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial investment. i.e., you can't just alphabetically list your books on a piece of paper, state that it is a database, and assume protection; you'd have to have a whole library before that could be true. The same is not true for copyright; as long as you're the first one to do so, it can be copyrighted. * Database law makes a difference between reuse of and requesting information from a database. In this context, reuse means that you are making the contents of the database available to the public, whereas the other action would be something like making a photocopy, printing a part of the electronical database, etc. These aren't very accurate descriptions (my original text is in Dutch, and I'm having troubles with parts of the translation), but it gives you an idea. * If you create a database, you have the right to - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database. Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a database :-) - Control the first sale inside the EU. However, you cannot forbid further sales; once the database has been sold inside the EU (with the permission of the creator of the database, obviously), the creator loses his right to control further selling of the database. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is not the case for copyrighted works. * As a user of a database, you can *without permission of the creator of that database* request a substantial part of the database, as long as it's either for private or educational use, or 'to guarantee the public security', whatever that might include (you know, secret agents and stuff). * Database law does not include stuff such as 'moral rights', or 'parental rights'. You only have the right to control the exploitation of the database (until you sell it). * Contrary to copyright law, you can give up all your rights to a database; this is probably related to the fact that those rights that cannot be given up are exactly the rights that don't exist in database law. Also, the rights to a database can be owned by a company (or how do you say that in English, a legal structure that is a person, as far as the law is concerned), which isn't the case for copyrighted works (probably because creating a database requires a substantial amount of work, which cannot reasonably be done by a single (natural) person...). * Finally, database law does not exclude other forms of protection; a database could theoretically be protected both by database law and by copyright law (if the requirements for both systems are fulfilled), or perhaps something else. I have the feeling, though, that in a real-life situation, not the entire database would be protected by copyright law; only parts of it. Copyright isn't just about controlling who gets to copy what. It's also about protecting the original author. The same isn't the case with database law; it serves a completely different purpose, so the protection is of a completely different type. Anyway. #include ianal.h I used the papers of my course of IT law I had to take during the last year I went to school. It's pretty accurate, but what's in this mail is an interpretation of an interpretation (I haven't seen the actual lawtexts, only my teacher's interpretation of them). I could've made some mistakes. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgplR4ZdhAA5P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:27:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: And their intentions are: MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. I'm not particularly convinced it's not compatible with the GPL, either. If you're trying to distribute the product alone, then the GPL has absolutely no relevance. If you're distributing it with something, GPLed or not, then it's apparently the same as MIT/X11, which is GPL compatible. [If this were valid, then the GPL wouldn't be incompatible with the Artistic license either]. No, that's not the case, since the Artistic license isn't MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the GPL. This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is. Therefore, in order to link a GPLed application with glibc, I need to be able to distribute the source code to glibc under the GPL as well. Again, under _the terms of_ the GPL. From this I can conclude that I need to be able to distribute any given component of the glibc source code under the GPL. Which isn't correct. You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which you can; the original parts don't matter, since if you're distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all. Consider, as another example, the following program: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.0 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # All rights reserved find /foo -type f | grep 'aj' | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed 's/aj/AJ/g'` mv $a $x done and the following derivative: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.1 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # May be freely used/copied/etc under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. export LANG=C word=$1 if [ $word = ]; then word=aj fi worduc=`echo $word | tr a-z A-Z` find /foo -type f | grep $word | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed s/$word/$worduc/g` mv $a $x done Version 1.1 and third party derivatives are clearly under the GPL, but that doesn't mean you can use it to make a copy of version 1.0 that's under the GPL, any more than you can start with a blank page and convert that to a copy of version 1.0 without violating copyright. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpFKYpVp3q7o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the GPL. This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is. That's what I said, only longer. And it remains the essence of the problem here - we _can't_ distribute it under the GPL. From this I can conclude that I need to be able to distribute any given component of the glibc source code under the GPL. Which isn't correct. You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which you can; the original parts don't matter, since if you're distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all. Consider if a package consisted of two files. One is 'hello.c', and the other is 'fsf-funding'. The license for hello.c says You may only distribute this along with a copy of fsf-funding, md5sum value. The license for the package as a whole says: * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. The licensor of the package does not own the copyright to hello.c, and therefore cannot be construed as implicitly licensing it under the GPL. You can distribute the end product under the GPL. You cannot remove fsf-funding and distribute the result. Are you seriously suggesting that this is acceptable under the terms of the GPL? It's just another form of the invariant sections we've had so much fun with in the GFDL - data which cannot be detached or modified. If not, please refine the statement You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which you can; the original parts don't matter, since if you're distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all. appropriately. I believe that once you have refined it to exclude all the gratuitously non-free examples I can invent, it will also exclude the sunrpc code. Consider, as another example, the following program: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.0 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # All rights reserved find /foo -type f | grep 'aj' | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed 's/aj/AJ/g'` mv $a $x done and the following derivative: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.1 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # May be freely used/copied/etc under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. export LANG=C word=$1 if [ $word = ]; then word=aj fi worduc=`echo $word | tr a-z A-Z` find /foo -type f | grep $word | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed s/$word/$worduc/g` mv $a $x done Version 1.1 and third party derivatives are clearly under the GPL, but that doesn't mean you can use it to make a copy of version 1.0 that's under the GPL, any more than you can start with a blank page and convert that to a copy of version 1.0 without violating copyright. If this were true, then for all cases where multiple licenses applied to a given sequence of bytes, then you would have to obey _all_ of them. In the copyright law we use in this world, you only have to obey _one_ of them. (Note that this is distinct from combining multiple sequences of bytes under different licenses into a single work - then you do have to obey all of them) Under the GPL, I can take version 1.1, delete the first two stanzas, replace $word with aj and $worduc with AJ - simple modification to optimise the script. I now have a copy of version 1.0 that is under the GPL. At no point did I look at version 1.0 while performing this optimisation, so it is in no sense a derivative work of 1.0. If this did _not_ hold, then a corporation would be able to produce a GPLed program, and a set of modifications which you were not permitted to make - by implementing them and licensing them differently. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpGovijTPmP0.pgp Description: PGP signature
