Re: Third party code license issue
Adam Sampson, 2012-03-08 13:29+0100: Medhamsh m...@medhamsh.org writes: “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” That's the JSON license, which has been discussed here before -- have a look at bug #585468, #585470 or #602250 for other examples. That is right. By the way, this license is also considered non-free by the FSF because it conflicts with freedom 0: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- 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/jjahiu$ca6$2...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Third party code license issue
Hello, On Thu, March 8, 2012 8:30 pm, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: Adam Sampson, 2012-03-08 13:29+0100: Medhamsh m...@medhamsh.org writes: âThe Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.â That's the JSON license, which has been discussed here before -- have a look at bug #585468, #585470 or #602250 for other examples. I have re-packed the upstream source by removing that file. That file is not at all used by the debian package and the software still works as it should without that file also. Thanks a lot for all your suggestions and guidelines. Sincerely, -- Medhamsh Hacktivist | http://medhamsh.org BD16 E32E CA4D 83A3 1270 725D D766 7997 0ABC 20E9 -- 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/17809.122.169.175.104.1331224064.squir...@mail.medhamsh.org
Re: Third party code license issue
On Sunday, March 04, 2012 01:56:09 AM Ben Finney wrote: Medhamsh m...@medhamsh.org writes: The upstream of adminer released it under Apache-2.0 but this third party code has the Expat license text and after that another one-liner which reads, “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” This violates the DFSG §6. By declaring some fields of endeavour off-limits, the licensor is not granting the freedoms required for all Debian users. As Paul Wise refers to in a linkes article, the clause is uselessly vague and creates the effect that the recipient *can't know* whether what they are doing is copyright violation. It's needlessly adding confusion to an already confused issue. The author is not willing to change that line. I want to have the advice regarding this issue. The best advice, given the refusal of JSmin upstream to change to a clearly free license, is to drop the dependency on JSmin. Ideally, work with your upstream to make the work fully functional without that library. I do not think the authors of the DFSG intended to endorse the use of software for evil. And I don't think Evil is a Field of endeavor. Most people know, or think they know, when they are doing evil. I also do not think the the distinction between Good and Evil is any more ambiguous than the term field of endeavor. But because of nihilism of our times, the courts are unlikely to interpret Good and Evil. The clause should be taken as an exhortation rather than a legal requirement. In our times, those who favor Good over Evil should be encouraged rather than discouraged. They should be given every benefit of doubt. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelli...@blackpatchpanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Third party code license issue
Paul Elliott, 2012-03-04 09:37+0100: But because of nihilism of our times, the courts are unlikely to interpret Good and Evil. The clause should be taken as an exhortation rather than a legal requirement. In our times, those who favor Good over Evil should be encouraged rather than discouraged. They should be given every benefit of doubt. Since that clause uses the verb “shall”, it is intended as an obligation. If it is too vague, or too whatever to be usable in a court, then it is just a very bad one. If the goal was to encourage people to do Good, or to send a postcard to the author, or to sacrifice a goose, then their would be no problem writing something like: The Software should be used for Good, not for Evil. You are encouraged to send a postcard to the Author. The Author would be pleased if you sacrificed a goose. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- 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/jiveri$tk5$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Third party code license issue
Paul Elliott pelli...@blackpatchpanel.com writes: I do not think the authors of the DFSG intended to endorse the use of software for evil. I think the authors of the DFSG did not intend to endorse any particular use. But I am certain they did not intend to *restrict* any particular use. And I don't think Evil is a Field of endeavor. Most people know, or think they know, when they are doing evil. Yes, I'm sure that's so. The problem with the license clause in question is that it is not the person exercising the license who makes that determination: it is the opinion of the copyright holder that matters. So, at best, this clause becomes a “you must know the opinion of the copyright holder before you can know whether you even have a license in the work”. And at worst it becomes a chilling clause: in the absence of knowing whether one has license in the work to do something, many interesting uses will be seen as too risky, even if they are considered “not evil” by the person who would do them. The clause should be taken as an exhortation rather than a legal requirement. That's something that you should take up with the author of that clause then: it is phrased as a requirement, and I think it would be quite reasonable for the recipient and any judge to interpret it as one. In our times, those who favor Good over Evil should be encouraged rather than discouraged. They should be given every benefit of doubt. In our times, anyone who makes use of a copyrighted work does so at the mercy of the entire draconian copyright regime. We need licenses that make recipient's freedoms clear and simple to protect, not ambiguous and chilled. -- \“A life spent making mistakes is not only most honorable but | `\ more useful than a life spent doing nothing.” —anonymous | _o__) | Ben Finney pgp5MlHHiO11P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Third party code license issue
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 02:37:28 -0600 Paul Elliott wrote: [...] I do not think the authors of the DFSG intended to endorse the use of software for evil. I think that it's not a matter of endorsing evil uses. It's a matter of forbidding discrimination. Free Software cannot discriminate against any given field of endeavor, whatever some people may think about that field of endeavor. And I don't think Evil is a Field of endeavor. If you discriminate against evil uses, you are discriminating against some possible uses: as a consequence, you are discriminating against some fields of endeavor. Even worse: you are discriminating against some ill-defined fields of endeavor, since what is evil and what is good is a matter of points of view. Most people know, or think they know, when they are doing evil. I also do not think the the distinction between Good and Evil is any more ambiguous than the term field of endeavor. I disagree: I think that Good and Evil often depends on the opinions and/or political views of the person who evaluates things. Is running a nuclear reactor a good use or an evil use? I think that this strongly depends on what you think about nuclear power plants... Is carrying out research on embryonic stem cells good or evil? Once again, this strongly depends on your point of view... Countless other examples could be made, but they would not probably add much to this discussion. The point I am trying to make is: who gets to decide what's good and what's evil? If it's the copyright holder of the work, we don't know exactly what his/her opinions are, and they are not described in the license text. As a consequence, we have a license text that discriminates against unpredictable use cases. That's very bad, I think, and definitely non-free, IMO. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgprWY8oL7dCJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Third party code license issue
On Sunday 04 Mar 2012, Paul Elliott wrote: I do not think the authors of the DFSG intended to endorse the use of software for evil. And I don't think Evil is a Field of endeavor. Most people know, or think they know, when they are doing evil. I also do not think the the distinction between Good and Evil is any more ambiguous than the term field of endeavor. There are religions, philosophies and schools of thought that do not look at thoughts, deeds and words in simplistic black and white terms; consequently these credos do not have any intrinsic concept of good or evil. As an adherent of one of these schools of thought, I am unable to meaningfully parse the original author's requirement. Again speaking for myself, I would disagree with your last assertion above: the distinction between Good and Evil is not at all unambiguous and, if it can be defined at all, wholly dependant on context. But because of nihilism of our times, the courts are unlikely to interpret Good and Evil. The clause should be taken as an exhortation rather than a legal requirement. In our times, those who favor Good over Evil should be encouraged rather than discouraged. They should be given every benefit of doubt. Only meaningful in specifically dualistic philosophies and world views. The only objective of this mail is to share a perspective on the issue, not to get into a theistic or religious debate. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur || r...@kandalaya.org || GPG: http://otheronepercent.blogspot.com || http://kandalaya.org || CC68 It is the mind that moves || http://schizoid.in || D17F -- 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/201203041945.26219.r...@linux-delhi.org
Third party code license issue
Hello, I have been working on the ITP(#658861), adminer a php based webapp. This uses a third party code, written by another author. The upstream of adminer released it under Apache-2.0 but this third party code has the Expat license text and after that another one-liner which reads, The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. So, this third party code's license is Expat+Above line. I requested the author of that third party code explaining him debian packaging policies and licensing FAQ, that this if altered to, The Software should be used for Good, not Evil. would make the upstream software a free software. The author is not willing to change that line. I want to have the advice regarding this issue. Upstream: Adminer (http://www.adminer.org/) Third-party code: Jsmin (http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html) Sincerely, -- Medhamsh Hacktivist | http://medhamsh.org BD16 E32E CA4D 83A3 1270 725D D766 7997 0ABC 20E9 -- 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/35823.14.139.82.6.1330840098.squir...@mail.medhamsh.org
Re: Third party code license issue
You will need to ask the adminer upstream to remove the dependency on jsmin. If they are not willing to do so then you will need to repack the adminer upstream tarball to remove it. Then add a patch to make it work when jsmin is missing. http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6hhxx+r1g3of49wga9jadjqxfd2mwz_6bnadjbz+tj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Third party code license issue
Medhamsh m...@medhamsh.org writes: The upstream of adminer released it under Apache-2.0 but this third party code has the Expat license text and after that another one-liner which reads, “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” This violates the DFSG §6. By declaring some fields of endeavour off-limits, the licensor is not granting the freedoms required for all Debian users. As Paul Wise refers to in a linkes article, the clause is uselessly vague and creates the effect that the recipient *can't know* whether what they are doing is copyright violation. It's needlessly adding confusion to an already confused issue. The author is not willing to change that line. I want to have the advice regarding this issue. The best advice, given the refusal of JSmin upstream to change to a clearly free license, is to drop the dependency on JSmin. Ideally, work with your upstream to make the work fully functional without that library. -- \“Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so | `\ why should they care about it?” —Thomas Hesse, Sony BMG, 2006 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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/87vcmkn6jq@benfinney.id.au
