Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:20:45 +0200 anatoly techtonik wrote: Hello, Hello... Following recent Python policy updates I wonder if GPL is really the license of choice for software documentation in Debian? IMHO, yes it is and it should be, really! The GPL is the best choice, whenever a copyleft license is being searched for. For any kind of work: programs, documentation, images, and so forth... This is my personal opinion, but is shared by others, as well. There are many other licenses available that are more clear to general public, such as Creative Commons. Creative Commons are not clear at all! Try and read their actual legal text: there are many open questions, such as the ones around the infamous anti-DRM clause, where even official Creative Commons representatives refused to disclose the intended meaning of the clause. There are other problematic clauses, IMHO. I summarized my concerns about CC-by-v3.0 (which is even simpler than CC-by-sa-v3.0) in the following message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html As you can see, I am convinced that CC-by-v3.0 does *not* meet the DFSG. However, the FTP-masters disagree with me, and accept works released under the terms of this license (and of CC-by-sa-v3.0) in Debian main. Anyway, claiming that Creative Commons licenses are clear seems to be a huge stretch. The Creative Commons human-readable summaries may seem to be clear, but, unfortunately, they are just summaries (and not very accurate, BTW): they are not the actual legal terms... The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is used? Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietary derivative works... Does it allow to cite Debian Policy in books without making those books freely available? Within the quotation limits established by the applicable copyright law, it is always allowed to quote a published work, AFAIK: the Berne Convention seems to say that signatory countries have to implement quotation rights in their copyright laws. http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P144_26032 Please, CC. Done. [...] One specific problem is that nobody understands what do you mean when releasing something that is not software under GPL. The Debian policy is digital information, therefore it is software (as opposed to hardware). Perhaps you mean “something that is not a program”. I mean that documentation for software is not software itself.Software can render documentation or process it. Documentation can be printed and still remain documentation. Software is not. [...] You seem to be fond of the strict meaning of the term software. There's also a broad meaning. Please see my essay on this distinction: http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html Anyway, whatever you mean by software, it seems that this FAQ has already been pointed out to you on debian-python: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware This should make it clear that the GPL *can* be used for non-program works. I hope this helps to clarify. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp4sa9Ey4oJ0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote: Clause c and the fact that the author may have claims to the JUMBO name under trademark law means he can certainly require a name change. I don't think he can stop you from claiming that you can read and write his format, however. A secondary thing here, however, is that you generally want to get on with your upstream. If you start doing things he doesn't like, then he will make life difficult for you (see: ion3). Yeah. Since the biggest users of the Jumbo software, and also promotors of that CML format, distribute a patched version of the software, it's something they'll have to work out amongst themselves. I think it won't stay for all that long. Either that or I'll be an annoying bastard and harp on it in emails. ;) The feedback here has helped. The CML maintainers are going to split off the CC-BY-ND into another file which can go into non-free, the rest of the JUMBO code will clarified to be Apache 2.0, the CML developers are going through all their code to check that there are no other outstanding licensing details like that. There's the minor point outstanding of it Apache 2.0's relicense clause allows LGPL, but the only time that will come into play is if as of yet non-existent downstream providers package the software and distribute the derived system with a license fee. My judgement is that that is unlikely, what CML has done is enough, that the result is free (since it can all go to GPL), and therefore these changes fit into Debian's policy. Cheers! Andrew da...@dalkescientific.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
On Thu Dec 17 00:06, Andrew Dalke wrote: The feedback here has helped. The CML maintainers are going to split off the CC-BY-ND into another file which can go into non-free, the rest of the JUMBO code will clarified to be Apache 2.0, the CML developers are going through all their code to check that there are no other outstanding licensing details like that. I assume, then, that it can function without that non-free file? Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote: I assume, then, that it can function without that non-free file? Yes. Either it provides validation capabilities they don't need, or they have some hand-written code to deal with the parts that were automated because of having the schema around. Andrew da...@dalkescientific.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
In message 20091216233823.af491478@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is used? Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietary derivative works... CLOSED derivative works. If it's copyright, it's proprietary. proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: CLOSED derivative works. If it's copyright, it's proprietary. proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary. Although the GNU project disagrees again with your viewpoint: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html “Closed” Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term “open source”. In the free software movement, we do not want to be confused with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage people to lump us in with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed”. We call it “nonfree” or “proprietary”. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware Proprietary software is software that is not free or semi-free. Its use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely. Of course, in this regard Stallman's well known viewpoint that intellectual property is a legal unjustifiable term as copyright, patent, and trademark law are not based in property rights at all, is counter to what I expect most lawyers would say. (I say that if a dwarf planet like Pluto isn't a planet then it holds that intellectual property might also not be property. But I'm just a guy on a couch.) In the context of debian-legal, especially where the term copyleft is used, I would have assumed that the default vocabulary is well aligned with that of GNU, and to be expected. Andrew da...@dalkescientific.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
Andrew Dalke wrote: On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was blind. [...] Read it for yourself, make sure you've got a copy of the GPL next to you so you can *check* every reference he makes, and see if you come to the same conclusion I did, namely that the black letter of the GPL flatly contradicted the core assumption on which a large part of this book is based. You haven't read it and you made that conclusion? It sounds like you are promulgating hearsay and rumor. There's a free online copy which I linked to, and if what you are saying is right then it should be easy to point out some of the contradictions. This part followed if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it. Maybe the contradictions aren't in the part of the book linked, but elsewhere in the book read. The link seemed to be to a PDF of part of a book and Anthony W. Youngman wrote that he couldn't be bothered to read it. Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.) Further, Anthony W. Youngman isn't the only debian-legal contributor to think Larry Rosen's interpretations should not be taken wholesale, nor the only one who can't give full citations because those impressions were formed by interactions as much as literature. I'm another and I'm pretty sure there are others. BTW, none of the reviewers on Amazon agree with you http://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/product-reviews/0131487876/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8showViewpoints=1 and I thought that if the the book would be that poorly written then there would be some evidence. [...] So people who were persuaded to buy the book were persuaded by the book - is that surprising for this type of book? Also, remember that Amazon filed the notorious click-to-buy patent, uses DRM/TPM to erase books from their e-book reader (RMS called it the Amazon Swindle) and tries to overthrow laws they don't like (such as France's Lang Law), so some free software fans won't touch them with a bargepole. It's not a good place to go for reviews of free software related books. It scores 3.8 our of 5 on http://www.librarything.com/work/72601 (compared to 4.17 for Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman http://www.librarything.com/work/179957 which I think is the highest-rated book in the cluster: read them yet?) As far as I recall (I read it too long ago), the book was partly a sales pitch for Rosen's licences and also included an attempt to correct one of the big mistakes of the Open Source Initiative and pick a 5-point definition of Open Source which could actually compete with the 4-point Free Software Definition. I think OSI still use 10 points, so that's how convincing the book is. Even without knowing the problems of the choice-of-venue and pay-my-lawyers clauses in Larry Rosen's quesionable licences, it should be immediately obvious that that book is probably going to have an inflammatory perspective. Its title is Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law which manages to squeeze two of http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html into one book title. Hope that illuminates, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote: This part followed if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it. Maybe the contradictions aren't in the part of the book linked, but elsewhere in the book read. Indeed. BTW, I should have interpreted the original phrase as read the linked document rather than read the book. I have not found those contradictions, and as I asked in my earlier response I would like an example. Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.) Since my first post, of which I think you are talking about, also included the book title and author name, I figured that was sufficient. Should I have also included publication year and publishing company? Or do I have to give the proper citation every time I repeat the same book link in a thread? I think you're the first person in about 12 years to mention that linewraps are a problem. I stopped carefully linewrapping when I started seeing all my nicely wrapped text look ugly once quoted a few times and displayed on systems which had automatic wrapping. I thought that nearly all of the email programs did that these days, including the text-based ones. Linewrapping at fixed column sizes also looks very ragged when viewed with proportional fonts. Further, Anthony W. Youngman isn't the only debian-legal contributor to think Larry Rosen's interpretations should not be taken wholesale, nor the only one who can't give full citations because those impressions were formed by interactions as much as literature. I'm another and I'm pretty sure there are others. Eternal September. I've never posted here before, and I'll be unsubscribing soon, once this thread is over. They did not come up in my searches for more information about this topic. So people who were persuaded to buy the book were persuaded by the book - is that surprising for this type of book? Pardon? One isn't required to purchase an item via Amazon before one can comment on said item, at least to my understanding. I believe one could get the book from the library and also comment on Amazon. Or read parts of it online and gratis, as I did. Also, remember that Amazon ... It seemed an appropriate source to try to understand if the views of Youngman were singular, rare, or widely espoused. It wasn't my only information source used to construct my reply, and I gave references to those other sources, including two letters by Stallman defending Rosen from more egregious statements made by reviewers of Rosen's book. In one of them Stallman does point out that Rosen's criticism did not hold up in court, but that is the only criticism I could find regarding the book that I could find from a freedom perspective. Again, I was not thorough. Given that the response came so quickly I would assume it's a matter of a few moments to point to something definite, and that my details responses would indicate that it's not a trivially found and widely expressed idea. It scores 3.8 our of 5 on http://www.librarything.com/work/72601 (compared to 4.17 for Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman http://www.librarything.com/work/179957 which I think is the highest-rated book in the cluster: read them yet?) I had never heard of librarything before this. I will have to look at it some more. I have not read that collection of essays by Stallman. The point I was researching was in regards to Youngman's comment I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and by doing so you are taking away user rights. Searching Stallman's book now I see that relicense is not mentioned and sublicense is only mentioned as parts of the quoted GNU licenses. It provides no extra information to this topic. I still hold that Youngman is wrong in saying that relicensing takes away user rights, as a universal statement. The best counter example is the GFDL-Creative Commons relicensing, when the original GFDL's license grant is essentially identical to the GPLs. He urged me to Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY, but I see nothing in GPLv2 which prevents the addition of a relicensing clause of the kind which occurred with GFDL. Rosen's book, on the other hand, did specifically discuss the need for sublicensing and relicensing, and helped me understand some of the changes that went into GPLv3. As well, it helped me understand some of the nuances between the BSD and MIT licenses. As far as I recall (I read it too long ago), the book was partly a sales pitch for Rosen's licences I did not notice anything in the chapters I read which mentioned any of his licenses. I did not read the entire book. Nor do I know of the 5-point definition of which you also spoke. It may have occurred after he published the book. it should be immediately obvious that that book is probably going to have an inflammatory perspective. Its title is Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom
