Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 05:33:00AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, this text seems to be gone. (There are still some bogus trademark claims on that page--IANAL, but I doubt a trademark allows them to prevent people from using sql-ledger in domain names as long as the use isn't confusing--but they probably don't affect the software, or at least the name could be removed if it became a problem.) If Intel can [1], why not these guys? [1] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/54177 The rules vary depending on the relevant TLD, but generally speaking, rich people are allowed to dicatate terms to non-rich people about which domains they can use. There are some exceptions, notably within some of the per-country domains. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
sql-ledger may belong in non-free
I am not subscribed to this list. Please CC if you need me to reply. I was reading through the Terms Conditions[1] (henceforth Terms page) on the and I am not sure that it conforms to the DFSG, specifically section 3. If you look at the Terms page, you will notice that the section on Extending and Re-branding SQL-Ledger indicates that the GPL only allow the derivative work to be a Larger Work and that you cannot remove the SQL-Ledger logo as a result. First of all, the GPL doesn't seem to even contain the word larger. Any mention of a derivative work indicates that you can make any change. By their interpretation, I think it is clear that I would not be able to take their database schema and base a new software project on that unless I (A) included all of the SQL-Ledger code in my project (cannot freely make modifications), (B) changed the project's name, (C) maintain the SQL-Ledger logo (again, cannot free make modification), and (D) advertise SQL-Ledger by including Powered by SQL-Ledger in a subtitle for the program. (A) might be able to be exchanged with having a project with more source code than SQL-Ledger in order to make it a larger work. Also, on their website in the same section, they state, If you do not want to display the SQL-Ledger logo, the 'powered by', or the trademark and copyright notice, you need to obtain explicit permission from DWS. This violates section 7. This info is not contained in the tarball of the distribution as far as I can tell. Of course, IANAL and may be entirely wrong about some or all of this interpretation. Thanks, wt [1] http://www.sql-ledger.org/cgi-bin/nav.pl?page=misc/terms.htmltitle=Terms%20%26%20Conditions -- Warren Turkal Consultant, Penguin Techs http://www.penguintechs.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:35:10AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: I am not subscribed to this list. Please CC if you need me to reply. If you wish to be copied on replies to Debian lists, please set your Mail-Followup-To header to indicate this, instead of asking everyone else to adjust headers manually. :) I was reading through the Terms Conditions[1] (henceforth Terms page) on the and I am not sure that it conforms to the DFSG, specifically section 3. If you look at the Terms page, you will notice that the section on Extending and Re-branding SQL-Ledger indicates that the GPL only allow the derivative work to be a Larger Work and that you cannot remove the SQL-Ledger logo as a result. The text in question (for archival and quoting purposes) is: The GPL license allows you to extend SQL-Ledger and distribute the Larger Work. This does NOT mean, that you can remove or alter the copyright, nor remove or alter the SQL-Ledger logo. You must give the Larger Work a different name, but must include Powered by SQL-Ledger in the product name or subtitle. (e.g. XYZ Accounting, Powered by SQL-Ledger). In addition, you need to acknowledge the SQL-Ledger trademark and copyright (SQL-Ledger is a registered trademark of DWS Systems Inc. Copyright DWS Systems Inc. All rights reserved.). If you do not want to display the SQL-Ledger logo, the powered by, or the trademark and copyright notice, you need to obtain explicit permission from DWS. You're correct; this text has no connection to the GPL, which says no such things; it's just a collection of false statements. This puts the software in an uncertain state: on one hand, they're giving permissions (the GPL), and on the other, they're saying you don't have them. Either this page is not legally binding, and we do have the permissions of the GPL, or it is, and they're being contradictory (in which case the work is probably not safe to distribute at all). Of course, Debian both tends to take the safe option in this type situation, as well as tries to honor the author's desires as closely as possible; both of these imply that Debian shouldn't be distributing this software. As an aside, in this type of case, I have a hard time figuring out what these people were thinking. One speculation is that they wanted to use some third- party GPL code, but also want to apply those restrictions. (In that case, they're probably violating the GPL.) Another would be that they want the publicity from releasing under the GPL, but don't actually want to release under the GPL. Finally, they might just be confused, and actually believe the GPL says what they say it does, though I'd have a hard time believing that. (Also curious: their trademark license requires acknowledgement of a copyright; SQL-Ledger is a trademark of DWS Systems Inc. Copyright DWS Systems Inc. All rights reserved., even for uses of the trademark independent of any copyrighted work. Huh?) You might try to convince them to fix up their licensing, but I'd have no idea where to start. :) Somebody else on this list might have some ideas; alternatively, you could ask the FSF for help--I'd expect that reducing incorrect, confusing claims about what the GPL means is something they'd be very interested in. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free
On Monday 04 April 2005 04:12 am, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:35:10AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: If you wish to be copied on replies to Debian lists, please set your Mail-Followup-To header to indicate this, instead of asking everyone else to adjust headers manually. :) Hopefully, it is on now. The text in question (for archival and quoting purposes) is: The GPL license allows you to extend SQL-Ledger and distribute the Larger Work. This does NOT mean, that you can remove or alter the copyright, nor remove or alter the SQL-Ledger logo. You must give the Larger Work a different name, but must include Powered by SQL-Ledger in the product name or subtitle. (e.g. XYZ Accounting, Powered by SQL-Ledger). In addition, you need to acknowledge the SQL-Ledger trademark and copyright (SQL-Ledger is a registered trademark of DWS Systems Inc. Copyright DWS Systems Inc. All rights reserved.). If you do not want to display the SQL-Ledger logo, the powered by, or the trademark and copyright notice, you need to obtain explicit permission from DWS. You're correct; this text has no connection to the GPL, which says no such things; it's just a collection of false statements. This puts the software in an uncertain state: on one hand, they're giving permissions (the GPL), and on the other, they're saying you don't have them. Either this page is not legally binding, and we do have the permissions of the GPL, or it is, and they're being contradictory (in which case the work is probably not safe to distribute at all). Of course, Debian both tends to take the safe option in this type situation, as well as tries to honor the author's desires as closely as possible; both of these imply that Debian shouldn't be distributing this software. I wholly agree with this result. Should a bug be filed with a link to this thread? As an aside, in this type of case, I have a hard time figuring out what these people were thinking. One speculation is that they wanted to use some third- party GPL code, but also want to apply those restrictions. (In that case, they're probably violating the GPL.) Another would be that they want the publicity from releasing under the GPL, but don't actually want to release under the GPL. Finally, they might just be confused, and actually believe the GPL says what they say it does, though I'd have a hard time believing that. I think that they wanna get their name attached to open source but still monopolize the service value adds. Check out the other provisions on that page like you can't register a domain with sql-ledger in it unless you link to http://www.sql-ledger.com/ and have the logo on it. What if I wanna make a website like sql-ledger-sucks.com in which I make a list of reasons I don't like it and have a version of the logo that is modified to incorporate that idea. I think that they are trying to prevent negative publicity like that. (Also curious: their trademark license requires acknowledgement of a copyright; SQL-Ledger is a trademark of DWS Systems Inc. Copyright DWS Systems Inc. All rights reserved., even for uses of the trademark independent of any copyrighted work. Huh?) You might try to convince them to fix up their licensing, but I'd have no idea where to start. :) Somebody else on this list might have some ideas; alternatively, you could ask the FSF for help--I'd expect that reducing incorrect, confusing claims about what the GPL means is something they'd be very interested in. I am not interested in pursuing it with them. I was reading lwn.net and looked at their website and noticed this info. I think it should definitely be removed from Sarge unless this is resolved. wt -- Warren Turkal Consultant, Penguin Techs http://www.penguintechs.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:35:10AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: I was reading through the Terms Conditions[1] (henceforth Terms page) on the and I am not sure that it conforms to the DFSG, specifically section 3. If you look at the Terms page, you will notice that the section on Extending and Re-branding SQL-Ledger indicates that the GPL only allow the derivative work to be a Larger Work and that you cannot remove the SQL-Ledger logo as a result. That's a bit confusing. I don't know whether that's because they're confused or if it's deliberate. You can't remove other people's copyright notices from a GPLed work, so where the trademarked name occurs as a part of a copyright notice, the GPL says you can't remove it. However, the GPL doesn't say any such thing about the source code referred to by those notices. Also, just because a sentence has the word copyright and notice in it doesn't mean that the sentence is a copyright notice (otherwise this sentence would be a copyright notice). -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
