Re: Micropolis GPL License Notice

2008-01-14 Thread Miriam Ruiz
2008/1/13, Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Hi,

 i just found the following 'ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7' at
 http://www.donhopkins.com/home/micropolis/ for the former game SimCity
 (now Micropolis). I would like to discuss it's DFSG freeness here:

Martin: Are you planning to maintain it or shall I put an ITP for it
for the Games Team?

Greetings,
Miry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Openstreetmap data license

2008-01-14 Thread John Halton
On Jan 14, 2008 2:56 PM, Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The Openstreetmap (OSM) project (http://openstreetmap.org/) currently
 licenses all data under the CC-by-sa 2.0 license. IIRC, some/most of the CC
 licenses had some problems wrt DFSG-freeness

My understanding is that CC-by-sa 2.0 is regarded as non-free for DFSG
purposes. See: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html.

 Can somebody please clarify whether the current CC-by-sa 2.0 data from OSM
 can be included in Debian?

So my guess is that the answer to that question is no (at least as
regards inclusion in main).

John

(TINLA)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

2008-01-14 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:27:57 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:

[...]
 The plain text version of the licence may be found at
 http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/License.txt
 and is pasted below in its entirety.

My comments follow.
As usual I would like to draw your attention on my disclaimers, that is
to say: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

[...]
 TrueCrypt License Version 2.3
 
 
 I. Definitions
[...]
 4. Your Product means This Product modified by You, any work You derive from
 (or base on) This Product, any work in which You include This Product, or any
 respective part(s) thereof.

Does this mean that a mere aggregation (of the Product and other
unrelated works) counts as Your Product?
Does this broad definition interfere with DFSG#9?

[...]
 III. Terms and Conditions for Modification and Derivation of New Products
[...]
 a. The name of Your Product (or of Your modified version of This Product)
 must not contain the name TrueCrypt (for example, the following names are
 not allowed: TrueCrypt, TrueCrypt+, TrueCrypt Professional, iTrueCrypt,
 etc.) nor any of its variations that can be easily confused with the name
 TrueCrypt (e.g., True-Crypt, True Crypt, TrueKrypt, TruCrypt, etc.)

I've argued several times in the past against this kind of broad
restrictions.  I think they go beyond what is permitted (as a
compromise!) by DFSG#4.

See, for instance:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg4.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00181.html

[...]
 All graphics files showing any TrueCrypt logo (including the non-textual
 logo consisting primarily of a key in stylized form) must be removed from
 Your Product (or from Your modified version of This Product) and from any
 associated materials. Logo(s) included in (or attached to) Your Product
 (or in/to associated materials) must not incorporate and must not be
 confusingly similar to any of the TrueCrypt logos or portion(s) thereof.

If these graphics files are unmodifiable and undistributable in
modified versions of the work, I think they are non-free and must be
removed from a Debian package, as long as this package can otherwise be
uploaded to the main archive (that is to say, as long as the other
showstoppers are solved).

 
 b. The following phrases must be removed from Your Product and from any
 associated materials:
 A TrueCrypt Foundation Release
 Released by TrueCrypt Foundation
 This is a TrueCrypt Foundation release.

Like the above-mentioned Logos, these sentences deserve a similar
treatment.

 
 c. Phrase Based on TrueCrypt, freely available at
 http://www.truecrypt.org/; must be displayed by Your Product (if
 technically feasible) and contained in its documentation. Alternatively, 
 if
 This Product or its portion You included in Your Product comprises only a
 minor portion of Your Product, phrase Portions of this product are based
 in part on TrueCrypt, freely available at http://www.truecrypt.org/; may 
 be
 displayed instead. In each of the cases mentioned above in this paragraph,
 http://www.truecrypt.org/; must be a hyperlink (if technically feasible)
 pointing to http://www.truecrypt.org/ and you may freely choose the
 location within the user interface (if there is any) of Your Product 
 (e.g.,
 an About window, etc.) and the way in which Your Product will display 
 the
 respective phrase.

This is obnoxious, because it imposes an exact phrase to be included in
the modified work.  I think it's even worse than GPLv3#5d: it is very
close to fail DFSG#3, if not already failing.

[...]
 IV. Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities; Indemnification
[...]
 4. You shall indemnify, defend and hold all (co)authors of This Product, their
 agents and associates, and applicable copyright/trademark owners, harmless
 from/against any liability, loss, expense, damages, claims or causes of 
 action,
 arising out of Your use, inability to use, reproduction, (re)distribution,
 import and/or (re)export of This Product (or portions thereof) and/or Your
 breach of any term of this License.

Warning!  Indemnification clause: is it acceptable?  It smells as
non-free...

[...]
 VI. General Terms
 
 1. You may not use, modify, reproduce, derive from, (re)distribute, or
 sublicense This Product, or portion(s) thereof, except as expressly provided
 under this License. Any attempt (even if permitted by applicable law) 
 otherwise
 to use, modify, reproduce, derive from, (re)distribute, or sublicense This
 Product, or portion(s) thereof, automatically and immediately terminates Your
 rights under this License.

This is non-free, as explained by Ken Arromdee in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00132.html

[...]
 
 
 This is an independent implementation of the encryption algorithm:
 
 Twofish by Bruce Schneier and colleagues
 
 which is a candidate 

Re: Openstreetmap data license

2008-01-14 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:24:20 + John Halton wrote:

 On Jan 14, 2008 2:56 PM, Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The Openstreetmap (OSM) project (http://openstreetmap.org/) currently
  licenses all data under the CC-by-sa 2.0 license. IIRC, some/most of the CC
  licenses had some problems wrt DFSG-freeness
 
 My understanding is that CC-by-sa 2.0 is regarded as non-free for DFSG
 purposes. See: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html.

That is my opinion too.
The Debian packager could exploit clause 4b (see
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode) by modifying
the OSM data and distribute them (as Derivative Works) under the terms
of CC-by-sa-v3.0.

But my opinion is that CC-by-sa-v3.0 also fails to meet the DFSG.
See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00176.html

On the other hand, other people (including the FTP masters) seem to
disagree with me and think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 meets the DFSG...  :-(

  Can somebody please clarify whether the current CC-by-sa 2.0 data from OSM
  can be included in Debian?
 
 So my guess is that the answer to that question is no (at least as
 regards inclusion in main).

Agreed.

My suggestion is: try and persuade upstream to change licensing policy
(I admit it's a hard task, especially because I have the impression
that the copyright holders are numerous...) and have the data
re-licensed in a DFSG-free manner (e.g.: under the terms of GNU GPL v2).

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html
 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpzz5LQUlpyJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


ttf-breip with SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE

2008-01-14 Thread Mauro Lizaur
Hello There,
I recently adopted and packaged the font ttf-breip which is already
on the debian repositories on the main section.
My sponsor was in doubt about the licence of the font (SIL), and
double-checked if its dsfg-free or not with other DD's and some of
them told her it was free and some told her that it wasn't free.
Also i've read a thread on this mailing list about the gentium font
with the same license  [1], but i still have no answers about this
font and its license.

So should the ttf-breip font keep in main or should be moved to non-free?
Sorry for my bad english, i hope you understand what i am asking here

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00314.html

Thanks,
Mauro


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: ttf-breip with SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE

2008-01-14 Thread Paul Wise
On Jan 15, 2008 1:17 PM, Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So should the ttf-breip font keep in main or should be moved to non-free?
 Sorry for my bad english, i hope you understand what i am asking here

Gentium[1] and other SIL OFL licenced fonts have been accepted into
Debian main, so presumably the ftpmasters believe that those
OFL-licenced fonts are DFSG-free. I guess ttf-breip is therefore fine
for main.

1. 
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-sil-gentium/current/copyright

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]