Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
Olive wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If the selection of the data that was put in the database involved creative activity by its maker, then yes you need a copyright license. If the database was created by a European company, then you need a license under its database right. (No database rights for US publishers) Are you sure of this? European jurisdiction protect database; If a European Company wants tu use a database made by a US publisher; I think it might be forbidden by European law. The EU Database rights Directive has a reciprocity provision. Until the US introduces sui generis database protection for European producers, US producers do not get database protection in Europe. Article 11, under 1: The right provided for in Article 7 shall apply to database whose makers or rightholders are nationals of a Member State or who have their habitual residence in the territory of the Community. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 13:46 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the DFSG by disguising that as editorial changes. Only you and Anthony Towns believe the changes were not editorial. -- .''`. 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: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 19:03 +0530, Shriramana Sharma a écrit : It's a program related to astronomy that requires latitude, longitude and elevation of places to calculate sunrise, sunset etc. For that I found the database from geonames.org. This database has a certain internal format which the program will be hard-coded to utilize. If the program cannot work without the database, that makes it a derived work. This is not a problem if you are the sole author, because you can add an exception to allow depending on this database. You can also make the program able to read several database formats, and ship it with a less featured database with a more permissive license. -- .''`. 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: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the program cannot work without the database, that makes it a derived work. Not true: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#MereAggregation -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 19:03 +0530, Shriramana Sharma a écrit : It's a program related to astronomy that requires latitude, longitude and elevation of places to calculate sunrise, sunset etc. For that I found the database from geonames.org. This database has a certain internal format which the program will be hard-coded to utilize. If the program cannot work without the database, that makes it a derived work. You're aware that derived work in the context of copyright has a specific legal meaning? I don't believe your assertion is correct in the context of copyright law. Nor do I believe it's true even in the general sense. It's quite possible to design a program to *interoperate with* a set of data without *deriving the program work from* that data set. -- \To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make | `\ you something else is the greatest accomplishment. -- Ralph | _o__)Waldo Emerson | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
* Marco d'Itri: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the program cannot work without the database, that makes it a derived work. Not true: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#MereAggregation Huh? A comparable FSF position in this area is the claim that programs written in Emacs Lisp are a derivative work of Emacs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:56 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Soeren Sonnenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. Wishing ain't going to make it happen. The following problems prevent it: well lets at least *try* to do it. 1. inspecting the debian/copyright file manually is the only reliable way to detect which licence(s) apply to a package. ISTR we were quite conservative in compiling the legal/licenses/ list, only listing those most common or clearest cases; I am only asking for OSI certified licenses. I think it is worth supporting licenses that are officially termed open source (and give people a chance of understanding which part of the license makes it impossible for being in debian main). Anyway having a look at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical list 'only' 60 licenses. While I personally think 60 licenses should be more than enough, I understand debian will accept a lot more. 2. rejections are seldom that clear-cut and public; This is OK to me if the package comes under a non official OSS license. 3. *packages* are rejected, not *licenses*; Of course... illegal shortcut my bad. 4. after all that, ftpmaster decisions can be surprising and sometimes even direct 'why?' questions are not answered in public - the most recent one I recall was about the MPL and Electronic Distribution Mechanisms http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00223.html (which I've yet to act on.) Well at least that part of the MPL does not seem to be a problem, as #3.2 of the MPL says and debian releases are shipped on CD/DVDs w/ the source Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available;[...] I am not sure what happened to #2.1 from http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html though... [...] Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause incompatibilities I am now just commenting on the parts below. In summary I think that the OSI's open source definition is in some points even more strict than the DFSG (e.g. 10. does not exist in debian) and thus I would expect most of the software coming under a open source license to be DFSG OK too. The only conflicting item I see is item 2, which is exactly the problem with the MPL. However if the argument above holds for the MPL I don't see why it does not hold for all OSI certified licenses, i.e. debian distributes the source code together with the program. Therefore I fail to see why *any* program under satisfying OSI's 10 points on OSS is not DFSG conform and so I would claim any of the 60 OSI-OSS licenses is OK. Now please prove me wrong. Soeren 1. Free Redistribution (OSI) The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. vs Free Redistribution (debian) - OK The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. 2. Source Code (OSI) The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. vs Source Code (debian) - NOT OK if program is not distributed with source The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. 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. vs Derived Works (debian) - OK The license
Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 03:07:04PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 19:03 +0530, Shriramana Sharma a écrit : It's a program related to astronomy that requires latitude, longitude and elevation of places to calculate sunrise, sunset etc. For that I found the database from geonames.org. This database has a certain internal format which the program will be hard-coded to utilize. If the program cannot work without the database, that makes it a derived work. Er, presumably the application can work with any database that's in the right format? -- 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/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:56:23 +0200 Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: [...] Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause incompatibilities I am now just commenting on the parts below. In summary I think that the OSI's open source definition is in some points even more strict than the DFSG (e.g. 10. does not exist in debian) and thus I would expect most of the software coming under a open source license to be DFSG OK too. [...] Therefore I fail to see why *any* program under satisfying OSI's 10 points on OSS is not DFSG conform and so I would claim any of the 60 OSI-OSS licenses is OK. Now please prove me wrong. The main differences between Debian and OSI do not lie in the letter of the DFSG and of the OSD. The two sets of items are indeed similar. The main differences are in the ways the two sets of items are *interpreted* by the two organizations. The Debian Project explicitly states that the DFSG are *guidelines* and interprets them to decide whether a *package* is or is not Free Software. OSI based its OSD on the DFSG, but treats it as a *definition*, that is to say, a set a *rules* whose letter, it seems, must be met, in order for a *license* to be *approved* (OSI-certified) as Open Source. However OSI has begun to interpret the OSD in such a relaxed way, that it seems almost any license even vaguely resembling something acceptable gets approved, sooner or later... IMHO, the term Open Source has gradually become totally meaningless, because of this we-certify-everything attitude of OSI (and, ironically, because of the success that the very term gained: everyone now uses and abuses the term Open Source to mean anything, just since it's a trendy term...). Now, what is worse is that I fear the Debian Project is following OSI's steps down the same slippery slope. Debian has begun stretching the DFSG and accepting stuff that IMO should have never entered the main archive (GFDL-ed documents without unmodifiable parts, CC-by-v3.0- and CC-by-sa-v3.0- licensed works, to name but a few...). My concern is that, sooner or later, even accepted in Debian main will become meaningless (from a Freeness standpoint, I mean)... :-( And that makes me sad. Disclaimers: IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp1ScEplHW9v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Last call draft of AGPL v3
Hi all, the last call draft of the GNU Affero General Public License (GNU AGPL) version 3 has been published by the FSF, back on 14 August. The full text of this last call draft can be read at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-2.html The text of this license draft is basically identical to the final text of the GNU GPL v3, except for section 13. The FSF has explicitly asked to submit comments about this section. Section 13 of the GNU AGPL v3 draft 2 follows, along with my comments (which are basically unchanged with respect to the ones I made for the previous AGPL draft, since the AGPL issues are basically unchanged...). I will send my comments to the FSF public consultation system ASAP. The usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Last Call Draft (2) of Version 3, 14 August 2007 THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT A PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. [...] 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network Bad: no clear definition of remote users The term user is not clearly defined. If I get an access denied error page through a browser, am I a user of the web application? When I visit a portal, am I a user of the browser? Of the portal application, as well? Of the server-side scripting engine, perhaps? Of the web server? Of the kernel the web server runs on top of? Of the router OS? And so forth... Where do we draw the line? This ambiguity is really problematic, as it implies that there's no clear way to tell whether a modified version supports remote interaction, and hence there's no clear way to tell whether it is subject to the restriction specified by this section. === the vagueness of the term user may extend the restriction to basically every kind of modified version (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. Bad: use restriction, with a cost associated to it This restriction compels whoever runs the modified version of the Program to accommodate the source code on the server or, alternatively, to set up and maintain a separate network server to provide source code: this may be a significant cost in some cases. This is ultimately a use restriction (from the point of view of whoever runs the modified version of the Program) and effectively forbids private use of the modified version on a publicly accessible server. I'm *not* quite convinced that forbidding private use on a publicly accessible server should be considered as an acceptable restriction. Anyway, it's a cost (a significant one, in some cases) associated with running the modified version of the Program. === this is a use restriction, that may be associated with a significant cost This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpEqa27YG0mc.pgp Description: PGP signature
