Re: eawpats license [was: Timidity-patches eek]
In addition to David Given's warning, which I agree with and I find reason enough to not consider eawpats DFSG-free, I add the following. Andrew Suffield quoted the license for eawpats: So, basicly[sic] you can not use the analog drums or the pistol files in any commercial work. This is out of my hands. The rest of the patches are fully public domain as far as I know. So, am I understanding this correctly: this person's patch set is made up of two sets of other patches: one set for non-commercial use only, and the other set is in the public domain? Due to the limitations of discussion via e-mail, I'll assume I'm correct in this assessment. If you DO use this patch set in a commercial production, I'd like to hear about it. A free copy of the production might be nice too :) These are suggestions. They can be ignored. But they make me wonder if the author really understands what it means for a work to be in the public domain? I release these patches as fameware. If you use them in any non-private way, give me credit. These patches are not to be sold for profit (heaven forbid). They were free when I got them and so they shall remain. Here's where my problem lies: regardless of which patch set is referred to here (see above), the limitations don't matter; neither set of patch files can have terms placed upon them. This person is trying to set terms for works copyrighted to someone else (the for-non-commercial-use-only patches), or this person is trying to set terms on works in the public domain. Later Andrew Suffield asked: Aside from the absence of the standard clause about distributing modified versions, I am unsure of the clause prohibiting sale for profit. If I'm correct about the source of these files, it doesn't matter. The author has no power to set terms for works in the public domain. If the author has made derivative works based on public domain works, couldn't Debian get copies of the modified files and use only the public domain parts of those files? If possible, this would essentially work around the non-DFSG-free not to be sold for profit clause. So, are some subset of these patch set files really in the public domain or not? Because those are the only potentially interesting files for Debian.
Re: eawpats license [was: Timidity-patches eek]
J.B. Nicholson-Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I release these patches as fameware. If you use them in any non-private way, give me credit. These patches are not to be sold for profit (heaven forbid). They were free when I got them and so they shall remain. Here's where my problem lies: regardless of which patch set is referred to here (see above), the limitations don't matter; neither set of patch files can have terms placed upon them. This person is trying to set terms for works copyrighted to someone else (the for-non-commercial-use-only patches), or this person is trying to set terms on works in the public domain. I would guess that the person is making non-binding suggestions, rather than setting terms, but they might be (construed as) claiming copyright on the anthology/collection. Edmund
Re: Debian registered by a trade as TM in Spain!
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 10:59:45AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The barrapunto article makes it clear that the academy (hmm, perhaps
trade school is better English?) is not holding this trademark for the
benefit of the Debian community.
academy is right:
academy
n 1: a secondary school (usually private)
2: an institution for the advancement of art or science or
literature [syn: {honorary society}]
3: a school for special training
^
4: a learned establishment for the advancement of knowledge
Can someone familiar with Spanish IP law comment on what weight is given
to prior art in the case of a trademark challenge? I'm assuming that,
one way or another, some money will have to be spent on lawyers to fix
this.
Javier de la Cueva (lawyer) said in another message:
[...] Más importante que el registro de una marca es el uso de
una marca. [...]
[...] The point on registering a trade mark is the use of the
mark itself.
and:
[...] registrar como propia una marca que previamente pertenece al
mundo cultural es una idiotez puesto que en cualquier momento hay
un procedimiento de oposición y te la quitan. Basta con demostrar
la preexistencia de un uso de la marca diferente al registrado.
[...] registering as of your own a mark that previously's been in
common use is silly, because at any moment somebody can arrange an
'opposition procedure' and the mark will be yours no more. It's
enough demonstrating the previous existence of the use of the mark
in a different way than the registrar's.
I don't know whether that 'in different way' may affect this. Anyway, he
states again in the message that proving that Debian (OS) is prior to
Debian (Academy), is enough to win (and offers himself, bona fide, in
favour of Debian Comunity).
We can translate the entire mail if you want, but these are the relevant
points.
Regards,
Ricardo
Re: License issue with freeswan (Eric Young's libdes)
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 13:23:28 +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: Freeswan upstream developers are currently thinking of switch to openssl. I already pointed out to them that this might need a change in their own (GPL) license statement so that linking to openssl is explicitly allowed. Perhaps you can ask them to consider using GNUTLS (www.gnutls.org) rather than OpenSSL? GNUTLS's license (mostly LGPL, some GPL; see libgnutls5-dev for details), unlike OpenSSL's, is GPL-compatible. Several packages in Debian that used to use OpenSSL have already switched to GNUTLS (mutt and gnome-VFS IIRC). GNUTLS builds on libgcrypt which includes a DES implementation; it should not be too difficult to have FreeS/WAN use gcrypt's DES implementation rather than libdes's; that should solve the licensing issues for now. HTH, Ray -- GRub[B]eR JHM, jij bent echt nerd :)) GRub[B]eR maar wel een goeie :) GRub[B]eR Soort van programmerende furby Gezien op #cistron
Re: License issue with freeswan (Eric Young's libdes)
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:23:28PM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: The reason why freeswan can currently not go into main is an issue with some code license that is bundled with it. I am struggling with this for quite some time now and at the moment I need some help to clarify it Freeswan (the user space daemon and the kernel module) needs Eric Young's libdes to work. The freeswan code is mostly licensed under GPL, while libdes has the advertising clause in it. However, quoting from the CREDITS file of freeswan: -- The LIBDES library by Eric Young is used. It is not under the GPL -- see details in libdes/COPYRIGHT -- although he has graciously waived the advertising clause for FreeS/WAN use of LIBDES. -- Which parts of freeswan link against libdes? According to /usr/share/doc/freeswan/copyright, some parts are LGPL. Do we know for sure that libdes+GPL is happening? Also, since freeswan uses libdes internally (it does not appear to use libssl), if there is a GPL violation here, it is a violation whether or not the binaries are in main. I did get a forwarded email from freeswan upstream developers, written by Eric Young. Because we think that he did not intend this mail to be made public, I can not send it to this list or include in the freeswan package without his explicit permission (and contacting him might, in the experience of freeswan upstream authors, be difficult). In this non-signed mail he basically says that he does not care about this advertising clause anymore as he now works on other projects, but is, due to his contract with RSA, unable to release a new version with a changed license. If he can't release a new version with a changed license because of his contract, then what legal force does his email to freeswan upstream have? Perhaps he doesn't care about the advertising clause, but this is not the same thing as waiving the clause. To be GPL-compatible, the code must be distributable under the exact terms of the GPL. If it's distributable under those terms, it can also be used in other GPL projects. If we can't also use libdes in other GPL projects, then even if he has waived the advertising clause for freeswan, the license is still not GPL compatible. What is needed here is a license exemption from the freeswan copyright holders, granting permission to distribute binaries linked against libdes. An email that we can't even cite on a mailing list gives us no legal protection if EAY decided to sue. We must assume that EAY's license is still in full force; therefore, we do not have a license that allows us to distribute binaries combining libdes with GPL FreeS/WAN code. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpFfyDRgSmWV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License issue with freeswan (Eric Young's libdes)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Langasek wrote: | Which parts of freeswan link against libdes? According to | /usr/share/doc/freeswan/copyright, some parts are LGPL. Do we know for | sure that libdes+GPL is happening? No, not for sure. However, since the copyright situation is difficult, having many different copyright owners, I would assume so I have forwarded your mail to my recent upstream contact. Hopefully he will know better. | Also, since freeswan uses libdes internally (it does not appear to use | libssl), if there is a GPL violation here, it is a violation whether or | not the binaries are in main. Yes. | If he can't release a new version with a changed license because of his | contract, then what legal force does his email to freeswan upstream have? | Perhaps he doesn't care about the advertising clause, but this is not | the same thing as waiving the clause. Yes, I had the same feeling about the email (that's the reason for asking here for advice...). In fact, I don't think that his email has any legal force. | What is needed here is a license exemption from the freeswan copyright | holders, granting permission to distribute binaries linked against | libdes. Is this enough ? Because of the advertising clause, would Debian be forced to include such an advertisment in any release document ? best regards, Rene -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAj1/uskACgkQq7SPDcPCS96HiwCgkALtrPag49CgpjGJBtzGHk2B w/IAnjzRi6llrRGPAUARhBzjLP8DHEdH =ASdx -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: License issue with freeswan (Eric Young's libdes)
Rene Mayrhofer wrote: Freeswan (the user space daemon and the kernel module) needs Eric Young's libdes to work. I know from researching for mindterm that version 3.06 of Eric Young's libdes (from 1993) was licensed under the GPL. I don't know how much the libdes library has changed since then, but it's perhaps worth a look if you can find it. The des.c included in ssh 1.2.26, which can be found pretty easily and is derived from libdes 3.06, is likewise licensed under the GPL. Of course gnutls is probably a better idea if you can get it to work. -- see shy jo pgpWh1VS21FRS.pgp Description: PGP signature
