Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs
> FW> GPLv3 makes it pretty clear that Dreamhost can take your rights away > > So all that effort of writing Free Software and the result is there is > Johnny, sitting at the shell prompt, unable to see the source code > to anything behind it if they decide to close it. Yes, I find the bring-yourself-into-slavery clause extremely discomforting, too: | You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not | convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains | in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose | of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you | with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with | the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do | not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works | for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction | and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of | your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. This was put into the license at the very last moment. Maybe it does not apply to the Dreamhost case, but I think it does apply to appliances like the Tivo, and especially to customer premises equipment given to you by our ISP (which are a common source of alleged GPLv2 violations). Tivo (or the ISP) only needs to make sure that there's a contract that stipulates that you provide electrical power and connectivity to the device, so you perform a service for them, and have no right to the source code under the GPLv3, unless you are explicitly granted access to the binaries. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3
John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 12:05 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If we have named Firefux the modified version of Firefox, I doubt the > > > Mozilla foundation would have let that pass. > > > > There's various other reasons for that and it wouldn't have been covered > > by a prohibition on calling it Firefox or something easily confused with > > Firefox. (How often do people use the other f-word to mean a fox?) > > Trade marks protect against use not only of identical marks, but also > of similar marks where there is a risk of confusion. So Firefux would > almost certainly infringe Mozilla's trade mark rights in Firefox. Indeed! But it would not have been covered by a TrueCrypt-like naming clause in the *copyright* licence! That's the point I was trying to make: there's more (and less) to trademarks than just simple naming. Copyrights are not trademarks and using one to do the other's job is often messy, like hammering in screws. Some stuff that shouldn't be covered will be, while letting others escape. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs
\"John Halton\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 25, 2008 9:07 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My first question would be whether those files would contain sufficient > > creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. If they don't > > (and I am not sure something like /etc/make.conf is 'creative'), then > > GPLv3 cannot apply to those files. > > Not all jurisdictions require "creative expression" for copyright > protection. The UK, for example, only requires a work to be "original" > - i.e. not copied. [...] I think that's a bit *too* broad. I'm pretty sure that I've been told by lawyers at seminars that it has to pass some (low) effort threshold to sustain copyright. The main legislation (Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) seems not to cover this and I found [2005] EWCA Civ 565 saying:- 33. The essential elements of originality were expounded by the House of Lords over century ago in Walter v. Lane [1900] AC 539, a decision on the Copyright Act 1842. It remains good law: Express Newspapers plc v. News (UK) Ltd [1990] FSR 359 at 365-366. The House of Lords held that copyright subsisted in shorthand writers' reports of public speeches as "original literary" works. [...] so I suspect this comes from case law. However, I also think some of those configs are going to be subject to copyright in English law, though; but that unless dreamhost are considered to be releasing the binaries, there's no obligation to offer source. It might be a milder variation on the CD-stealer FAQ at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy so it might be worth asking [EMAIL PROTECTED] If they are in breach of the licence, it needs one of the package copyright holders to act, not debian-legal, although subscribers may help identify the copyright holders, offer explanations and assistance. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a > disclaimer like "TINLA"? I think the long list of acronyms may be a sly dig at certain silly postings in times past which complained that certain people weren't making it clear enough that they aren't lawyers, debian project leaders, or other similar qualified people. I think Francesco Poli was repeatedly targetted for that and I think it was around the same time that my people.d.o pages gained the phrase "You might think that's obvious, but ...!" > [...] A pipe is a pipe, even if you put a sign "This is not > a pipe" beneath it. But the one with the sign beneath it really isn't a pipe! ;-) I hope anyone who hasn't seen The Two Mysteries goes and looks it up. Magritte was a twisted artist and that is a particularly fine work. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs
"Arnoud Engelfriet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Florian Weimer wrote: | You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not | convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains | in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose | of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you | with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with | the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do | not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works | for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction | and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of | your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. This was put into the license at the very last moment. Maybe it does not apply to the Dreamhost case, but I think it does apply to appliances like the Tivo, and especially to customer premises equipment given to To me the clause reads like a work-for-hire or have-made clause. If a company needs private modifications made to a GPLv3 work, it may need to hire a third-party programmer. Giving this programmer the (possibly already modified) source code normally constitutes conveyance, so the programmer would be free to publish the source code. It also is intended to cover giving a copy of the code to your hosting provider for them to run on your behalf (the "or provide you with facilities for running those works" part). However, that part could indeed be read in such a way as to create a loophole. One case where this would be a bit more clear is if by default the Tivo box did not contain any GPL'ed code, but still had the key restriction thing. Once you have the device plugged in, Tivo makes an arrangement with you to run the code on the device on their behalf. That would likely be allowed under a strict interpretation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs
Florian Weimer wrote: > | You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not > | convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains > | in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose > | of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you > | with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with > | the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do > | not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works > | for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction > | and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of > | your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. > > This was put into the license at the very last moment. Maybe it does > not apply to the Dreamhost case, but I think it does apply to appliances > like the Tivo, and especially to customer premises equipment given to To me the clause reads like a work-for-hire or have-made clause. If a company needs private modifications made to a GPLv3 work, it may need to hire a third-party programmer. Giving this programmer the (possibly already modified) source code normally constitutes conveyance, so the programmer would be free to publish the source code. To avoid that situation, this clause says that the company can sign an NDA with the programmer and then give him the source. The programmer then can make the requested modifications and give them to the company, but is not allowed to publish the source he received or the modifications he made. > you by our ISP (which are a common source of alleged GPLv2 violations). > Tivo (or the ISP) only needs to make sure that there's a contract that > stipulates that you provide electrical power and connectivity to the > device, so you perform a service for them, and voil?, they don't need to > provide source code anymore. In a Tivo or ISP situation the ISP does not have its customers "make modifications exclusively for" the ISP. I really don't see how this clause would apply to an ISP or to Tivo. 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: web hosting providers' modified .debs
> FW> GPLv3 makes it pretty clear that Dreamhost can take your rights away > > So all that effort of writing Free Software and the result is there is > Johnny, sitting at the shell prompt, unable to see the source code > to anything behind it if they decide to close it. Yes, I find the bring-yourself-into-slavery clause extremely discomforting, too: | You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not | convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains | in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose | of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you | with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with | the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do | not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works | for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction | and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of | your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. This was put into the license at the very last moment. Maybe it does not apply to the Dreamhost case, but I think it does apply to appliances like the Tivo, and especially to customer premises equipment given to you by our ISP (which are a common source of alleged GPLv2 violations). Tivo (or the ISP) only needs to make sure that there's a contract that stipulates that you provide electrical power and connectivity to the device, so you perform a service for them, and voilà, they don't need to provide source code anymore.
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Monday 28 January 2008 01:27:54 am John Halton wrote: > > Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal > > system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is > > a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it > > away post factum. A pipe is a pipe, even if you put a sign "This is not > > a pipe" beneath it. > > Up to a point. But I don't think it is a case of whether something is > "legal advice" in the abstract, but whether (a) the person sending the > message owes its readers a duty of care, and (b) whether the readers > are entitled to rely on the message as legal advice. That seems pretty > unlikely to me - or I wouldn't post on this list at all, disclaimer or > no disclaimer - and so the need for a full, explicit disclaimer seems > minimal. "TINLA" just makes the point that bit clearer, in a > light-hearted and generally accepted manner. Youcan do an archive search for my posting on this topic and you'll find me often asking folks to temper their emails because they are getting dangerously close (if not going over) the line of what is and is not legal advice. I cannot speak to the British system, so John my very well be right in that context, but in the United States the critical question is whether the advice being given is of a specific or general nature. Example: Okay: Using GPL'ed software in a closed source application is bad. No Okay: Using GNU tar in a close source application violates section X.X of the GPL and will result in civil liability. My understanding (as a recent law school graduate and member of the CA bar... but not practicing...) is that there is no duty of care standard. You are either dispensing legal advice or you are not, doesn't matter whether the other party has a reasonable expectation to rely on it or not. The disclaimers do not modify that analysis, they are however a nice convention to remind folks of the nature of the list... but if I were to go around telling people "you should do X because of Y" then I'm giving legal advice. Where I think reliance and duty of care standard apply is in the analysis of damages. My guess is that I cannot be sued for civil damages of malpractice for stuff I say on this list (or, damages will be limited based on reliance)... but there are other gotchas with distributing legal advice, like practicing without a license for those who are not members of the bar and professional responsibility requirements for those who are. I'm sure folks can come up with a thousand reasons why this is a stupid way to regulate the legal industry... but it is what it is... and yes, it does make posting to this list challenging if you want to stay in the clear. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg c: 831.818.6940e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Jan 26, 2008 2:52 PM, Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a > disclaimer like "TINLA"? Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as constituting "legal advice" in the first place. > One, it is probably not intelligible to people coming to this list for > legal advice. A disclaimer that can't be understood by its target > audience shouldn't have legal meaning. People shouldn't be coming on to this list for "legal advice". That's not what it's for. > Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal > system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is > a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it > away post factum. A pipe is a pipe, even if you put a sign "This is not > a pipe" beneath it. Up to a point. But I don't think it is a case of whether something is "legal advice" in the abstract, but whether (a) the person sending the message owes its readers a duty of care, and (b) whether the readers are entitled to rely on the message as legal advice. That seems pretty unlikely to me - or I wouldn't post on this list at all, disclaimer or no disclaimer - and so the need for a full, explicit disclaimer seems minimal. "TINLA" just makes the point that bit clearer, in a light-hearted and generally accepted manner. John Note: This email has been written and sent for the general interest and benefit of readers of this mailing list. It is not intended to be a definitive analysis of the law or other issues relating to its subject matter. Advice should be taken on specific issues before you take or decide not to take any action. Or in other words: TINLA. ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3
On Jan 28, 2008 12:05 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If we have named Firefux the modified version of Firefox, I doubt the > > Mozilla foundation would have let that pass. > > There's various other reasons for that and it wouldn't have been covered > by a prohibition on calling it Firefox or something easily confused with > Firefox. (How often do people use the other f-word to mean a fox?) Trade marks protect against use not only of identical marks, but also of similar marks where there is a risk of confusion. So Firefux would almost certainly infringe Mozilla's trade mark rights in Firefox. But I appreciate that in this specific case there was a lot more going on, with copyright aspects as well. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
