Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This license fails DFSG 3 and I would recommend to the author that he use the right tool for the job. If he wants trademark protection in the Wpoison logo, he should apply for it. Of course, any party that attempts to use laws other than copyright law to stop people from exercising their freedoms under the DFSG risks having their software dropped from Debian or moved to an archive server where such harassment is less feasible (for instance, U.S. crypto export regulations). I agree with Branden's analysis of the license provisions you posted, but I think he a little overstates the issues with trademarks. In general, trademarking a name of a piece of software (and restricting the use of the name) has not been viewed to have anything to do with whether the software is free. (The canonical example here is TeX which has such a restriction.)
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: (The canonical example here is TeX which has such a restriction.) TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear license, but everyone still treats it as free software. (This was the case at least when I last looked at it, which was a year or two ago. I'd be delighted if someone could show I'm wrong about this.) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED] tutkimusavustaja / research assistant Jyväskylän yliopisto, tietotekniikan laitos University of Jyväskylä, Department of Mathematical Information Technology
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
snip # Also, the official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an HTML # hyperlink so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo image # will be directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at: Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Branden wrote: The license also forbids distribution of the Wpoison logo in any format that doesn't support an HTML hyperlink. Neither the GIF nor PNG formats, nor any image file format with which I am familiar, supports HTML linking *inside the image file format*. Re-read. It says image should be inside the hyperlink, not the other way around. Snnnvnd Fndrsn
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Sunnanvind [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re-read. It says image should be inside the hyperlink, not the other way around. You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo. That's not trademark protection, it's rather a kind of forced advertising. Unlike the noxious BSD advertising clause, however, it actually requires the advertising, and as such, is non-free. It seems to me that we cannot even distribute it in the nonfree archive.
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: (The canonical example here is TeX which has such a restriction.) TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear license, but everyone still treats it as free software. Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license. In any case, the point is that normal sorts of trademark issues don't impinge freeness of software. (There might be some case where trademarks are used in a way that *does* cause a problem, but the normal sorts of things are fine.)
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license. Would you please give a reference to it? -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED] tutkimusavustaja / research assistant Jyväskylän yliopisto, tietotekniikan laitos University of Jyväskylä, Department of Mathematical Information Technology
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license. Would you please give a reference to it? From tex.web: % This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved. % Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if % (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system provides % for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay intact.) % See Appendix H of the WEB manual for hints on how to install this program. % And see Appendix A of the TRIP manual for details about how to validate it. Note that number (2) there permits distribution of patched versions, provided you use the special WEB mechanism for patches.
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo. I agree that it doesn't make any actual difference with regard to freeness; I was just refuting Brandens insinuation of ignorance on behalf of the license writer. That's not trademark protection, it's rather a kind of forced advertising. Unlike the noxious BSD advertising clause, however, it actually requires the advertising, and as such, is non-free. It seems to me that we cannot even distribute it in the nonfree archive. My own interpretation is that it can be distributed in the non-free archive. It fails DFSG 3 by not allowing removal of the hyperlink; but as long as the hyperlink is there, I don't see any problem for non-free.
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Sunnanvind [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My own interpretation is that it can be distributed in the non-free archive. It fails DFSG 3 by not allowing removal of the hyperlink; but as long as the hyperlink is there, I don't see any problem for non-free. The non-free archive contains hyperlinks, and the license requires that those hyperlinks include the image. We don't do that, unless you plan special hackery.
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Thomas wrote: The non-free archive contains hyperlinks, and the license requires that those hyperlinks include the image. The license require no such thing. What it does require is that the image is displayed, hyperlinked (i.e. placed within hyperlink tags) to the specific page. It's a very small invariant piece, much like many that are already included in FSF programs today. (All instances of the GPL contains the FSF postal adress if I recall correctly.) The license doesn't discuss other hyperlinks of the archive at all.
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Sunnanvind [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The license require no such thing. What it does require is that the image is displayed, hyperlinked (i.e. placed within hyperlink tags) to the specific page. Where are you proposing we place that hyperlink?
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Thomas wrote: Where are you proposing we place that hyperlink? I just recieved word that the program appears to be a non-graphical one and as such, the placement of the hyperlink is indeed a problem, the burden of solving which I'd prefer to place on the copyright holder. Conclusively, an inquiry to the upstream author (perhaps by the package maintainer) is in order.
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
Hi!
Could you take a look at wpoison? (RFP #122929)
I guess it's DFSG compliant but just to make sure...
I've also asked the author for permission to use PNG versions
of his official GIF, do you think the modified license is okay too?
These are the changes for the new license:
27,30c27,34
# software or any derivative or modified version thereof. Also, the
# official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an HTML hyperlink
# so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo image will be
# directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at:
---
# software or any derivative or modified version thereof. Permission
is
# granted to redistribute the official Wpoison logo graphic in
graphic
# formats other than GIF, and to use them to comply with this
statement
# as long as the logo graphic does not suffer any modification.
#
# Also, the official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an HTML
# hyperlink so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo image
will
# be directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at:
Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
--
Robert Millan Debian GNU/Hurd user
zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.dyndns.org/
GPG ID C8D6942C
237F 8688 C2E5 BC64 E152 97B4 FB28 D41B C8D6 942C
Free Dmitry Sklyarov! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Join us in civil disobedience and distribute DeCSS!!
/*efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum [EMAIL PROTECTED]*/
/*Length: 434 bytes (excluding unnecessary newlines)*/
/*Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt clear.vob */
/*title-key can be read from the DVD by css-auth. (see livid.org)*/
#define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])
unsigned char x[5],y,s[2048];main(n){for(read(0,x,5);read(0,s,n=2048);write(1,s
,n))if(s[y=s[13]%8+20]/16%4==1){int i=m(1)17^256+m(0)8,k=m(2)0,j=m(4)17^m(3)9^k
*2-k%8^8,a=0,c=26;for(s[y]-=16;--c;j*=2)a=a*2^i1,i=i/2^j124;for(j=127;++jn
;c=cy)c+=y=i^i/8^i4^i12,i=i8^y17,a^=a14,y=a^a*8^a6,a=a8^y9,k=s
[j],k=7Wo~'G_\216[k7]+2^cr3sfw6v;*k+/n.[k4]*2^k*257/8,s[j]=k^(kk*234)
*6^c+~y;}}
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 12:50:54AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: 27,30c27,34 # software or any derivative or modified version thereof. Also, the # official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an HTML hyperlink # so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo image will be # directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at: --- # software or any derivative or modified version thereof. Permission is # granted to redistribute the official Wpoison logo graphic in graphic # formats other than GIF, and to use them to comply with this statement # as long as the logo graphic does not suffer any modification. # # Also, the official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an HTML # hyperlink so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo image # will be directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at: Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find neither of these DFSG-free. First of all, this sort of restriction is better accomplished through trademark law than copyright law. This license fails DFSG 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. This license forbids me from modifying the Wpoison logo graphic, which is presumably part of the package. The license also forbids distribution of the Wpoison logo in any format that doesn't support an HTML hyperlink. Neither the GIF nor PNG formats, nor any image file format with which I am familiar, supports HTML linking *inside the image file format*. Of course, that's not what the copyright holder means, but that's what his license says. This license fails DFSG 3 and I would recommend to the author that he use the right tool for the job. If he wants trademark protection in the Wpoison logo, he should apply for it. Of course, any party that attempts to use laws other than copyright law to stop people from exercising their freedoms under the DFSG risks having their software dropped from Debian or moved to an archive server where such harassment is less feasible (for instance, U.S. crypto export regulations). -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is omniscience hell? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpGc7V4vfmW1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?
I've been following the discussion, and it looks like wpoison, if determined free, will have the dubious distinction of being the first program in main (that I know of) with a clickwrap license that attempts to control use. (namely, it requires every user [0] to display the wpoison logo and link to the wpoison web page from their site [1]) Oddly enough, though, I can't find a clause in the DFSG excluding this sort of license. I'm somewhat surprised, actually; maybe it's just because clickwrap licenses tend to be so onerous that they fail one of the other points anyway. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'll butt out now. Maybe you should ask debian-legal? Daniel [0] and, apparently, every website which makes reference to this software; I guess I'm causing lists.debian.org to violate wpoison's license with this message? That sounds like nonsense to me.. [1] the intent seems to be something like the clauses that require credit to the original authors to be given in derivatives; is there any way you could twist a website using wpoison into being a derivative work? -- / Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---\ | Fate always wins...| | at least, when people stick to the rules. | |-- Terry Pratchett, _Interesting Times_ | \--- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) /
