Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:24:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: The packages page at http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages currently says: = Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free These packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free. = The point about encryption software is out of date since we can get any crypto software exported from the USA these days. The last sentence is needlessly vague. The thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html documents the exact rationale for these sections. The following patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page. I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would double-check it. -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Index: english/distrib/packages.wml === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/distrib/packages.wml,v retrieving revision 1.51 diff -3 -c -p -u -r1.51 packages.wml --- english/distrib/packages.wml6 Feb 2003 18:12:17 - 1.51 +++ english/distrib/packages.wml8 Jul 2003 04:52:18 - @@ -26,10 +26,17 @@ restrictive license or legal issues. The ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd -dtemNon-US/Main/em and emNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt - ddThese packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly - encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by - patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free./dd +dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt + ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be + stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by + patent issues./dd +dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt + ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but + have some onerous license condition restricting use or + redistribution of the software. They cannot be exported from + the USA because they are encryption software packages or they + cannot be stored on a server in the USA because are encumbered + by patent issues./dd /dl/blockquote pNote that same packages might appear in several distributions, but with
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: The thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html documents the exact rationale for these sections. The following patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page. I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would double-check it. Inaccurate and not worth fixing. non-us is vestigial and will die soonish. It exists only because nobody has scrapped it yet. Many packages still in non-us are there because their maintainers are MIA. I suggest you ignore this bug report until it no longer matters. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgpmCAuo7tbGX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unicode Character Database
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:34:36PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This license is not actually DFSG-free; it grants the right to make copies, to use copies for creating products, and to distribute copies *internally*, but it does not grant the right to distribute copies publically or to modify the file. The perceived consensus in 2002 was that the license is DFSG-free, but this is not my point. (However, sometimes I think it's easier to intepret the license itself than the result of the discussion about it on this list.) Hmm, I've reviewed the archives and it looks like you're right here. Someone got some specific references? Was I part of this consensus (just curious)? -- G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist: It ain't a sin if you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't get caught. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Anthony Davidson pgpDFChDZgya1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: The thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html documents the exact rationale for these sections. The following patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page. I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would double-check it. [...] Index: english/distrib/packages.wml === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/distrib/packages.wml,v retrieving revision 1.51 diff -3 -c -p -u -r1.51 packages.wml --- english/distrib/packages.wml 6 Feb 2003 18:12:17 - 1.51 +++ english/distrib/packages.wml 8 Jul 2003 04:52:18 - @@ -26,10 +26,17 @@ restrictive license or legal issues. The ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd -dtemNon-US/Main/em and emNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt - ddThese packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly - encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by - patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free./dd +dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt + ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be + stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by + patent issues./dd +dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt + ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but + have some onerous license condition restricting use or + redistribution of the software. They cannot be exported from + the USA because they are encryption software packages or they + cannot be stored on a server in the USA because are encumbered + by patent issues./dd /dl/blockquote pNote that same packages might appear in several distributions, but with Looks okay. I suggest the following further changes: s/free themselves/freely licensed by the copyright holder/ s/USA/U.S./ s/do not necessarily cost money, but// s/encryption software packages/ that are not exempted from the export control procedure that is used for packages in Main/ -- G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer pgpV1dXLzAGKs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:01:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: Index: english/distrib/packages.wml === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/distrib/packages.wml,v retrieving revision 1.51 diff -3 -c -p -u -r1.51 packages.wml --- english/distrib/packages.wml6 Feb 2003 18:12:17 - 1.51 +++ english/distrib/packages.wml8 Jul 2003 04:52:18 - @@ -26,10 +26,17 @@ restrictive license or legal issues. The ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but have some onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software./dd -dtemNon-US/Main/em and emNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt - ddThese packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly - encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by - patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free./dd +dtemNon-US/Main/em/em/dt + ddPackages in this area are free themselves but cannot be + stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by + patent issues./dd +dtemNon-US/Non-Free/em/dt + ddPackages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but + have some onerous license condition restricting use or + redistribution of the software. They cannot be exported from + the USA because they are encryption software packages or they + cannot be stored on a server in the USA because are encumbered + by patent issues./dd /dl/blockquote pNote that same packages might appear in several distributions, but with Looks okay. I suggest the following further changes: [snip] s/encryption software packages/ that are not exempted from the export control procedure that is used for packages in Main/ I find this last change confusing. If they are not exempted from the export control procedure, it should apply to them. How about They cannot be exported from the U.S. because they are encryption software packages that are not covered by the export control procedure that is used for packages in Main... instead? Thanks for reviewing this. -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux
Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:15:35AM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:01:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [snip] s/encryption software packages/ that are not exempted from the export control procedure that is used for packages in Main/ I find this last change confusing. If they are not exempted from the export control procedure, it should apply to them. How about They cannot be exported from the U.S. because they are encryption software packages that are not covered by the export control procedure that is used for packages in Main... instead? I agree. When I started writing it I was thinking about the applicability of the U.S. export control regulations themselves, but that's not really what we care about directly. I do suggest s/covered/handled/, thought. Thanks for reviewing this. No problem! -- G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the Debian GNU/Linux |best of all possible worlds. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists are afraid the optimists http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |are right about that. pgpNjOZqY1vCA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unicode Character Database
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:54:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:34:36PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This license is not actually DFSG-free; it grants the right to make copies, to use copies for creating products, and to distribute copies *internally*, but it does not grant the right to distribute copies publically or to modify the file. The perceived consensus in 2002 was that the license is DFSG-free, but this is not my point. (However, sometimes I think it's easier to intepret the license itself than the result of the discussion about it on this list.) Hmm, I've reviewed the archives and it looks like you're right here. Someone got some specific references? Was I part of this consensus (just curious)? http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00288.html ff.. Much of the meat of the thread seems to have been relegated to debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200211/msg02884.html. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Packaging of dvd software
Hello all, I have just asked on -mentors, and been referred to you for this question, so here I am. I am considering packaging a small (15K compressed) utility that extracts data from video dvd's. It does not link against libdvdcss, although it will use it if found. The program itself is GPL, so no problems with licensing, but I am wondering if this is legal for Debian to redistribute. It does not itself burn new dvd's, merely extracts the data from them in such a way that it is then easy to burn them to a new disc with `mkisofs -dvd-video` and dvdrecord. The thing I am unsure about is the whole area of dvd ripping - does the DMCA co. prohibit this sort of thing entirely, making it impossible for Debian to redistribute it? Is it legal to just extract to hard drive and file sharing is when one gets into problems? I see that transcode is not in Debian, so I am assuming there are some problems of this sort, although I am not sure. If someone who has familiarity with these issues cares to enlighten me, I would appreciate it. Please cc: me, as I am not subscribed to -legal. I have set the Reply-To: header to reflect this. TIA, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgp5aG5vSjUKC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packaging of dvd software
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:21:36PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote: I have just asked on -mentors, and been referred to you for this question, so here I am. I am considering packaging a small (15K compressed) utility that extracts data from video dvd's. It does not link against libdvdcss, although it will use it if found. The program If it uses the library if found, then it links against it; it's just doing the linking itself (presumably with dlopen and friends) instead of having ld.so do it. Not being a requirement is significant, though, as it (in some cases) can keep a program from being forced into contrib. *snip stuff I can't answer* Please cc: me, as I am not subscribed to -legal. I have set the Reply-To: header to reflect this. Reply-To only indicates what address to use when replying to you directly. In order to indicate that you want CC's on list followups, you need to set the Mail-Followups-To header. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Packaging of dvd software
This one time, at band camp, Glenn Maynard said: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:21:36PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote: I have just asked on -mentors, and been referred to you for this question, so here I am. I am considering packaging a small (15K compressed) utility that extracts data from video dvd's. It does not link against libdvdcss, although it will use it if found. The program If it uses the library if found, then it links against it; it's just doing the linking itself (presumably with dlopen and friends) instead of having ld.so do it. You are correct - I oversimplified when I didn't need to. I really meant to say it doesn't link against it at build time, and therefor doesn't need to go into contrib only because of non-free Build-Depends. Sorry to be unclear. Not being a requirement is significant, though, as it (in some cases) can keep a program from being forced into contrib. Right. This is what I meant to address. Please cc: me, as I am not subscribed to -legal. I have set the Reply-To: header to reflect this. Reply-To only indicates what address to use when replying to you directly. In order to indicate that you want CC's on list followups, you need to set the Mail-Followups-To header. Gotcha - will keep in mind for the future. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpf2THB9UPOI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unicode Character Database
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is /usr/share/perl/5.8.0/unicore/UnicodeData.txt a copy of the file, or an extracted form of it? As I read the license, the file is only freely redistributable *after* you've modified it -- unless the file is not actually copyrightable and the license is not binding. The next release of GNU miscfiles will have a version that is really free. We're going to first transform the existing file into some other useful format, which will then be licensed entirely under GPL. Since the transform will be non-lossy, we will also invert it and distribute something identical to the original file, but this time under the GPL. The FSF has checked this out with the legal nuts, and they say it seems like a fine strategy. Thomas
