Re: license of translations
Javier SOLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] It could take the form of a warning message when you upload files... All information submitted will be considered by clicking in ok you... I am irritated when applications try to dictate terms to me. Also, if we effectively give people no choice, we allow them to accuse us of being unfair, as well as failing to accept those packages where a different licence to the program is acceptable. For additional safety, can the infrastructure accept GPG-signed submissions? This could be a problem, if it is a requirement. In many case localisers are not technical people, and this could be a strong barrier to usage. An ability, not a requirement. However, I doubt that clicking the Signed icon in a mail client and entering your passcode is too technical for a translator. (I know some mail clients make you jump through hoops, but they are buggy for doing so IMO. I think it's daft to assume all clients are buggy because some clients are buggy.) -- MJR/slef http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 06:23 +0100, Carlos Correia a écrit : How about stopping the discussions about who is a developer or not, who has the right to discuss or not, and sticking to the facts? What a big troll you are... - From all your posts, there is only one thing we got to know: your opinion, which is, basicly, GPL or nothing. No need to go on trolling around... everyone has got your point. If you haven't followed the discussions, you probably don't have to tell the whole world about it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: ipv6calc: IP address assignments as source code
I wish mailing lists had moderation like Slashdot. -1 Flamebait. On 6/3/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The C header files containing the address assignments in the tarball are not source code in the GPL sense, ie. 'the preferred form of the work for making modifications'. This means that we're technically violating the GPL distributing the ipv6calc package in its current form. Get real, it's just data. Probably not even copyrightable. Unless somebody tells me I'm wrong somewhere, I'm about to file a You are wrong just about everywhere. Looks like you have been reading weirdos on debian-legal too long. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if I live in Italy? I don't think this is what the clause says. It is just a useless you shall respect the law clause. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. ***all applicable laws and regulations*** U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. andrew Choice of venue, which is non-free. I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. Why do you think so? Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. Those who don't are wrong. -- Henning MakholmThere is a danger that curious users may occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 04 June 2006 02:23, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is. Although a regular reader of debian-legal, I seldom post here. I believe Andrew may have seen me on -devel, -isp, -users, etc. Yes, I think I was reading off -devel. If Towns and Langasek have finished with the ad hominems, can we now return to consideration of the issues? Yes. As it seems here, the DDs, including one DPL, are trolling and making completely offtopic posts. Now I *really* wish mailing lists had moderation like /. does. -1 Troll to nearly every post AJ has made here. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
For the record, I think this is all offtopic trolling and we need to get back to the real work of checking licenses etc. And, AJ I don't think your replies are appropriate. andrew On 6/5/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant on this mailing list. Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing lists live? For the records, I believe that aj's reply was appropriate. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Monday 05 June 2006 11:26, Andrew Donnellan wrote: -cut-- It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. ***all applicable laws and regulations*** U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. There are jurisdictions (either being exotic or not) which respect others jurisdictions laws by means of mutual agreements or any other form(s) and this could be easily enforced when texts in plain words occur like: U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On 6/5/06, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. There are jurisdictions (either being exotic or not) which respect others jurisdictions laws by means of mutual agreements or any other form(s) and this could be easily enforced when texts in plain words occur like: U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. (BTW, I disagree with the this clause is already implied in the law so let's ignore it because it's harmless school of thought. If the clause is there it's intended to have an effect. What if laws change? What about other jurisdictions?). -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:58:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 ? 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit : Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant on this mailing list. Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing lists live? I don't believe that saying someone isn't a developer is contemptuous. It's very easy to fall under the misapprehension that the views of some participants on debian-legal represent the views of the Debian project as a whole, however, and particularly when that applies to individuals who aren't members of the Debian project, that does a serious disservice to people who are. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply is none. The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just relevant, it's the entire question. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster, on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for non-free, and that is also Sun's position. Just for clarification, a position expressed by a person that has a special position but is not elected is to be considered an official statement by the project? To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of authority is. The same thing applies when the dpkg maintainer speaks about dpkg -- every maintainer is an authority on their own package. Beyond that, the DPL is authorised to make statements of support for points of view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise (5.1.2), which I've done above, and that is an elected position, if you feel that makes a difference. Those aren't the final word; technical statements by maintainers can be overruled by the technical committee, and pretty much anything can be overruled by a general resolution of some sort or another, but, just for clarification, yes that really is the way things work in Debian. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns -- Debian Project Leader signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. It is there, no matter being additive or not: 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
#include hallo.h * Andrew Donnellan [Mon, Jun 05 2006, 07:13:29AM]: No. The conclusion is that sane Debian developers do recognize the problem and prepare an effective solution for it in silence. In the meantime wanna-be developers are allowed to troll on debian-devel list. They should just not be able to appear as beeing competent or even be in charge, which has been prevented by the DPL. What is wrong with not being a DD? I'm not one, I'm not in NM, I don't maintain any packages, I just care about free software and Debian in particular. Phrased after a famous german comedian: Democracy means, you are allowed to have an opinion on everything. You do not have to. Especially some people should learn a simple fact: if you do not have anything new to say, just STFU. Debian is supposed to be *open* and *transparent*. Telling off users because their opinion doesn't matter is just stupid. What Mike said is completely relevant, and IMHO correct. Yes. Should 100 people appear now and say the same things again, and again, and again? WE GOT IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. We are not through with this issue, and it will be solved in the near future. Just stop chewing the same arguments, let the people do their work. And do not try to polarize the discussion with another summary of facts, yeah, I could contribute to this discussion somehow so I rock. Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. It is there, no matter being additive or not: Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be more clear this time around. It says (broken down into more discreet grammtaical elements) You shall comply with all applicable laws (list 1 .. 4), including but not just element 2. If the the applicable laws in your country don't include element 2, this is a nonsense statement. If it said instead: You must comply with all applicable laws of your country, including the Sharia, do you think it means that in countries that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction? Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:14, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. It is there, no matter being additive or not: Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be more clear this time around. It says (broken down into more discreet grammtaical elements) You shall comply with all applicable laws (list 1 .. 4), including but not just element 2. If the the applicable laws in your country don't include element 2, this is a nonsense statement. I do not parse the license text that way. In that case the law is applicable because it is requested by the license and could be enforced in jurisdictions when the above statement is not a nonsense, e.g. comply with US export and import control laws for any reasons. If it said instead: You must comply with all applicable laws of your country, including the Sharia, do you think it means that in countries that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction? If the license says so (requires impossible or irrelevant demands) and I'm unable or unwilling to comply with then I'm not allowed to use the product. (btw, do not forget that Sharia is a law within some jurisdictions or better said laws follow the Sharia). So I wont be surprised if the above example given by you appears to be a reality somewhere. Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. It is free in some jurisdictions, but could be dangerous in others. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
In linux.debian.legal Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. As it seems here, the DDs, including one DPL, are trolling and making completely offtopic posts. Or maybe, but just maybe, you are in the wrong place and should spend your time in an environment where everybody is not so much hostile... -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Non-DD's in debian-legal
Disclaimer: I am not a DD, nor in the n-m queue. I'm also re-crossposting to debian-devel, because I don't think this discussion could usefully be had on debian-legal -- and it's not a licensing issue anyway. Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: I don't believe that saying someone isn't a developer is contemptuous. It's very easy to fall under the misapprehension that the views of some participants on debian-legal represent the views of the Debian project as a whole, This statement could, of course, be generalized to refer to any mailing list and any group of participants, and it would still be just as true. If this is a particular problem for d-l it's because people often ask d-l for a definitive judgement on a license, and the list is simply not set up to deliver on that request. There have been a few attempts (summaries, for example), but they never worked well. however, and particularly when that applies to individuals who aren't members of the Debian project, that does a serious disservice to people who are. I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list? I can tell you from experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while. This is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a solution. For whatever reason, this issue seems to be a particular problem for d-l. Every so often someone claims that the results of discussions on d-l aren't valid because d-l is populated by a bunch of non-DD's, or tries to discount someone's argument because that person isn't a DD. Mostly I write that off as sour grapes over being on the losing side of an argument. But when it comes from a duly elected official in the Debian organization, I have to take a step back and wonder what the problem is. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most DD's, despite occasionally having strong opinions on licensing (*This* license is _free_, @#$^!) are totally uninterested in taking the time to sort through the nitpicking arguments about language, jurisdiction, and law, etc., that are needed to make a decision on a particular license or work. That leaves a vacuum on d-l, where such discussions are supposed to take place. So that leaves those of us who may not be DD's but (by whatever perversion of character) are actually interested in discussing licenses, and motivated to ensure that the quality of the licensing of Debian software remains as high as that of the software itself. We, naturally enough, have helped to fill that vacuum. Unfortunately, licensing issues tend toward flame wars because, as I mentioned before, people tend to have strong opinions without wanting to take the time to ground those opinions in the facts. These flame-fests lead some people to try to find reasons to discount their opponents, and on d-l that reason is often simply that some of the participants are not DD's. So I don't think this problem is going away, nor do I think it's a serious one. After all, if DD's really think licensing issues should be discussed behind closed doors, they're free to pass a GR taking debian-legal private. But if you have a different opinion on the issue, I'd like to hear it. (Note that I am not at all talking about the whole Sun java bit. I personally find it hard to get worked up about non-free software going into non-free. Perhaps legal counsel should have been sought, but that's not my call.) -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:43:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of authority is. The same thing applies when the dpkg maintainer speaks about dpkg -- every maintainer is an authority on their own package. Of course, but the authority of doing something and Debian position are different concepts. One is techical decision and the other a policy decision. The ftpmaster implement the policy but do not decide it. Beyond that, the DPL is authorised to make statements of support for points of view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise (5.1.2), which I've done above, and that is an elected position, if you feel that makes a difference. Could you be more specific about the above ? i.e. Where did you make a (5.1.2) statement ? In that case, I would suggest Constitution 5.3. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 13:14:49 +0100, Stephen Gran escribía: that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction? After seeing licenses that claim not to be affected by any laws that would make any of its clauses illegal, I'd expect anything from them. Yeah, such clauses would be void, but the best thing you could make in such a case would not to accept the license at all (and not distribute the software). Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. Another[0] piece of hideous pseudopoetry: If this software you want to use, abide by laws with no excuse; for if you're ever caught speeding, this very agreement will be rescinded. [0] http://raw-output.org/20060605/decorative-clauses -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 15:39:01 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía: Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. Another[0] piece of hideous pseudopoetry: Sorry. What I mean is that I'm very suspicious of such clauses, because the usual claim is that they have no effect at the end. Well, if they don't, why are they there? -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list? I can tell you from experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while. This is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a solution. Let's go back to Walter's original text: What is key for Debian is for clarifications to go into the license, not the FAQ. I am spectacularly unimpressed with the arguments I have seen about estoppel etc. It makes the license lawyerbait. Just fix the license. Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ktorrent and GeoIP license
hi debian-legal gurus, the new upstream release of ktorrent added GeoIP. I would like to know if the licensed used by GeoIP is ok, specially the database part : There are two licenses, one for the C library software, and one for the database. SOFTWARE LICENSE (C library) The GeoIP C Library is licensed under the GPL. For details see the COPYING file. OPEN DATA LICENSE (GeoIP Standard Edition Database) Copyright (c) 2003 MaxMind LLC. All Rights Reserved. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning features or use of this database must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes GeoIP data created by MaxMind, available from http://maxmind.com/; Redistribution and use with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 2. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning features or use of this database must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes GeoIP data created by MaxMind, available from http://maxmind.com/; 3. MaxMind may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this database without specific prior written permission. THIS DATABASE IS PROVIDED BY MAXMIND.COM ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MAXMIND.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS DATABASE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Some parts of this software distribution are derived from the APNIC, ARIN and RIPE databases (copyright details below). The author of this module makes no claims of ownership on those parts. APNIC conditions of use: The files are freely available for download and use on the condition that APNIC will not be held responsible for any loss or damage arising from the application of the information contained in these reports. APNIC endeavours to the best of its ability to ensure the accuracy of these reports; however, APNIC makes no guarantee in this regard. In particular, it should be noted that these reports seek to indicate the country where resources were first allocated or assigned. It is not intended that these reports be considered as an authoritative statement of the location in which any specific resource may currently be in use. ARIN database copyright: Copyright (c) American Registry for Internet Numbers. All rights reserved. RIPE database copyright: The information in the RIPE Database is available to the public for agreed Internet operation purposes, but is under copyright. The copyright statement is: Except for agreed Internet operational purposes, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the RIPE NCC on behalf of the copyright holders. Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities is explicitly forbidden and may be prosecuted. The RIPE NCC requests to be notified of any such activities or suspicions thereof. cheers, Fathi PS: i cc'ed marek as you maintains geoip. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Monday 05 June 2006 16:50, Matthew Garrett wrote: Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list? I can tell you from experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while. This is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a solution. Let's go back to Walter's original text: What is key for Debian is for clarifications to go into the license, not the FAQ. I am spectacularly unimpressed with the arguments I have seen about estoppel etc. It makes the license lawyerbait. Just fix the license. Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check official db.debian.org or to ask the sender to confirm that statement with gpg signed message and to compare that against the official debian-keyring then he (addresee) will ask for help. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check official db.debian.org or to ask the sender to confirm that statement with gpg signed message and to compare that against the official debian-keyring then he (addresee) will ask for help. The context is a representative of Sun emailing debian-legal, and someone appearing to speak on behalf of Debian emailing him back. The DPL chose to clarify that Walter was not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian, presumably because he felt that there had been potential for confusion. Does that seem unreasonable? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:44:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply is none. The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just relevant, it's the entire question. The actual issues raised were about obligation and liabilities incurred by Debian much more than whether we have permission to include it. (The purpose of the license is to trade the permission with obligation and liabilities). I don't see Sun having a position on the amount of obligation and liability Debian should accept and how such position would be relevant to Debian policy. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if I live in Italy? I don't think this is what the clause says. It is just a useless you shall respect the law clause. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. ***all applicable laws and regulations*** ***including all export and import control laws of the U.S. government*** This clause _defines_ that US export laws are applicable. It says including as part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free. Defining that US export laws are applicable no matter whether they would be without the license is very highly non-free. -- Henning MakholmWhat a hideous colour khaki is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just relevant, it's the entire question. The relevant part of Sun's position is the license. That license does not contain a permission that Debian should be comfortable using. Sun says something different from the license in a FAQ that explicitly defines itself as having no legal effect. The FAQ itself says that it should not be believed when it contradicts the license. Therefore, supporting the decision to distribute their software in non-free on the parts of the FAQ that directly contradicts the license is not a reasonable position. -- Henning MakholmNej, hvor er vi altså heldige! Længe leve vor Buxgører Sansibar Bastelvel! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 12:54 +0200, Eduard Bloch a écrit : Yes. Should 100 people appear now and say the same things again, and again, and again? WE GOT IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. Apparently some people haven't received it, if they need to dismiss the argument based on the fact it has been expressed by non-developers. We are not through with this issue, and it will be solved in the near future. What makes you believe this will be solved in the near future? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 19:51 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:58:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 ? 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit : Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant on this mailing list. Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing lists live? I don't believe that saying someone isn't a developer is contemptuous. The context. Remember the context? It's very easy to fall under the misapprehension that the views of some participants on debian-legal represent the views of the Debian project as a whole, however, and particularly when that applies to individuals who aren't members of the Debian project, that does a serious disservice to people who are. Contempt and misplaced elitism against non-developers are a serious disservice to the whole project. Or, to say it with the crude words you like so much, when you're acting as an asshole, people outside the project only see the project leader is an asshole. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. No. It says that US *AND OTHER COUNTRIES* export/import laws should be respected. US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another country. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from *all* countries in the world, are you? Choice of venue, which is non-free. I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. Why do you think so? Maybe I don't want to lose time to explain it to people who say: Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. Those who don't are wrong. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Monday 05 June 2006 19:33, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. No. It says that US *AND OTHER COUNTRIES* export/import laws should be respected. US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another country. That depends. What if a country (or jurisdiction) does not have a export/import laws or its export/import laws stipulate that certain bilaterial agreements are in power for such cases. Having 'U.S.' in a law name does not mean that that law is not respected / enforced or complied with in any other jurisdiction. How do you think criminals repatration works between different jurisdictions... it is simply based on respecting other's jurisdictions laws by means of agreements we could hardly be familiar with for every single jurisdiction. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from *all* countries in the world, are you? This is not relevant to the case. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:27:38PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. Who cares? Why are we having this hair-splitting discussion about which jurisdictions US export and import controls apply in? The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on top of that. We are, after all, talking about laws that prohibit *the sharing of software*, which is one of the most fundamental features of Free Software. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on top of that. As already discussed elsewhere: how do you feel about the 3rd clause of the 3-clause BSD license? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:31:19 -0400]: My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most DD's, despite occasionally having strong opinions on licensing (*This* license is _free_, @#$^!) are totally uninterested in taking the time to sort through the nitpicking arguments about language, jurisdiction, and law, etc., that are needed to make a decision on a particular license or work. That leaves a vacuum on d-l, where such discussions are supposed to take place. So that leaves those of us who may not be DD's but (by whatever perversion of character) are actually interested in discussing licenses, and motivated to ensure that the quality of the licensing of Debian software remains as high as that of the software itself. We, naturally enough, have helped to fill that vacuum. So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group of non-developers who care about GNOME and, also, care about GNOME being in good shape in Debian, step up and try to help. The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go to the non-developers, of course, since they did the work, but a DD has to review and sign it before it is consider oficially part of Debian. And, if sadly no developer would be interested in uploading those packages, those contributors do not get to create an Alioth project, set up a repository, _and_ tell the world those are the official GNOME packages for Debian. They can create the project, set up the repo, and inform interested parties that they believe those packages are suitable for Debian, that they would like to see them in the official archive, and the reasons why they are in gnome.alioth.debian.org instead of ftp.debian.org. As you'll understand, nobody would like for debian-legal@lists.debian.org to become the gnome.alioth.debian.org in the example above. P.S.: Please CC me if you drop -devel. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Te has enfadado conmigo / porque te dejo / Es injusto No quieres volver a verme / porque no quiero / que estemos juntos Estás siendo egoísta / no has penseado que me quedo / solo yo también -- Astrud, Caridad signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ktorrent and GeoIP license
On 6/6/06, Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi debian-legal gurus, the new upstream release of ktorrent added GeoIP. I would like to know if the licensed used by GeoIP is ok, specially the database part : There are two licenses, one for the C library software, and one for the database. SOFTWARE LICENSE (C library) The GeoIP C Library is licensed under the GPL. For details see the COPYING file. OK. OPEN DATA LICENSE (GeoIP Standard Edition Database) Copyright (c) 2003 MaxMind LLC. All Rights Reserved. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning features or use of this database must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes GeoIP data created by MaxMind, available from http://maxmind.com/; Redistribution and use with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 2. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning features or use of this database must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes GeoIP data created by MaxMind, available from http://maxmind.com/; 3. MaxMind may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this database without specific prior written permission. THIS DATABASE IS PROVIDED BY MAXMIND.COM ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MAXMIND.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS DATABASE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Annoying, but DFSG-free AFAICT. This is the original BSD with advertising clause. Some parts of this software distribution are derived from the APNIC, ARIN and RIPE databases (copyright details below). The author of this module makes no claims of ownership on those parts. APNIC conditions of use: The files are freely available for download and use on the condition that APNIC will not be held responsible for any loss or damage arising from the application of the information contained in these reports. APNIC endeavours to the best of its ability to ensure the accuracy of these reports; however, APNIC makes no guarantee in this regard. In particular, it should be noted that these reports seek to indicate the country where resources were first allocated or assigned. It is not intended that these reports be considered as an authoritative statement of the location in which any specific resource may currently be in use. OK. ARIN database copyright: Copyright (c) American Registry for Internet Numbers. All rights reserved. RIPE database copyright: The information in the RIPE Database is available to the public for agreed Internet operation purposes, but is under copyright. The copyright statement is: Except for agreed Internet operational purposes, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the RIPE NCC on behalf of the copyright holders. Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities is explicitly forbidden and may be prosecuted. The RIPE NCC requests to be notified of any such activities or suspicions thereof. Definitely non-free. Except for agreed Internet operational purposes, no part of this publication may be reproduced is enough to make it non-free. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries. It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a non-free condition. No. It says that US *AND OTHER COUNTRIES* export/import laws should be respected. Which is even more than demanding only that the US laws are complied with. US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another country. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from *all* countries in the world, are you? Probably not, which means that I cannot accept to be bound by this license. -- Henning Makholm And here we could talk about the Plato's Cave thing for a while---the Veg-O-Matic of metaphors---it slices! it dices! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on top of that. Well said, and a good argument that my previous comments in this thread actually miss the point. I stand corrected. -- Henning Makholm ... popping pussies into pies Wouldn't do in my shop just the thought of it's enough to make you sick and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 19:51 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:58:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 ? 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit : Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant on this mailing list. Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing lists live? I don't believe that saying someone isn't a developer is contemptuous. The context. Remember the context? It's very easy to fall under the misapprehension that the views of some participants on debian-legal represent the views of the Debian project as a whole, however, and particularly when that applies to individuals who aren't members of the Debian project, that does a serious disservice to people who are. Contempt and misplaced elitism against non-developers are a serious disservice to the whole project. Or, to say it with the crude words you like so much, when you're acting as an asshole, people outside the project only see the project leader is an asshole. Saddly, I'll have to say it again: what a TROLL you are! Or, shall I say it french: un tout petit napoleon? Carlos - -- MEMÓRIA PERSISTENTE, Lda. Tel.: 219 291 591 - GSM: 967 511 762 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - URL: http://www.m16e.com Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ: 257488263 GnuPG: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEhMSU90uzwjA1SJURAkR/AJ4wMLZEPUmnGpZndP3wxnsz9S5xAQCffcEX HRGXXhnpNSaGNm8ki7ka6X4= =UCni -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. That's entirely reasonable. Perhaps I misinterpreted aj's message somewhat. It seemed to me to be placing rather more emphasis on Walter not being a DD. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group of non-developers who care about GNOME and, also, care about GNOME being in good shape in Debian, step up and try to help. Absolutely. That's the Debian Way(tm). The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go to the non-developers, of course, since they did the work, but a DD has to review and sign it before it is consider oficially part of Debian. That's where the analogy breaks down, though. Analyzing software licensing situations doesn't require upload rights or a key on the developer key-ring. In fact, it doesn't require any developer privileges at all -- unless you count posting on debian mailing lists and occasionally filing bugs as developer privilege. And, if sadly no developer would be interested in uploading those packages, those contributors do not get to create an Alioth project, set up a repository, _and_ tell the world those are the official GNOME packages for Debian. They can create the project, set up the repo, and inform interested parties that they believe those packages are suitable for Debian, that they would like to see them in the official archive, and the reasons why they are in gnome.alioth.debian.org instead of ftp.debian.org. As you'll understand, nobody would like for debian-legal@lists.debian.org to become the gnome.alioth.debian.org in the example above. I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote: [Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.] Hello, I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public License, included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm, was recently removed because the license was regarded non-free; this statement seems to come from Xorg upstream, see their Bug#5553 [1]. [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5553 One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils' package, and the full license included in its debian/copyright file, which makes me think the license has been ruled to be DFSG-free in the past. I took a quick look myself and, although I saw a couple of potentially problematic points, I'm more interested in -legal's assessment of whether this license surpasses or not the limits that are being applied to main nowadays. Just a note: I had to make a judgement call on this one, since it wasn't clearly non-free to me. In the end, because I'm not a fan of the problematic clauses and the program in question was, aiui, for essentially obsolete font formats, I decided to drop it. In contrast, the license for the GLX implementation that we're shipping also contains problematic clauses, but I'm not willing to yank it just yet. The reason is because it's critical to the way people expect an X server to work and there's no Free alternative. This obviously needs fixing (I'm hoping someone who's interested in this problem would put the time in to contacting SGI and trying to politely get it relicensed) and it's a far more important licensing problem affecting the X codebase than the mkcfm license. - David Nusinow p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as xfonts-utils. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ
All: Thanks to the comments here [1] (and also [2] [3] [4]) we have worked to incorporate your feedback to further clarify the intent of the DLJ. We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2) which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ has been specifically re-written to clarify the relationship between the FAQ and the license itself. For further questions regarding intent please followup here or in the jdk-distros Forum [3]. Regards, --Tom [1] debian-legal http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/threads.htm [2] jpackage-discuss https://www.zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2006-May/thread.html [3] jdk-distros Forum http://forums.java.net/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=94 [4] The [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias [5] https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/developer.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
David Nusinow wrote: On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. - David Nusinow One would think that even developers that haven't been elected/appointed to certain positions don't get to do these things. Travis Crump[not a debian developer] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
