Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: License for these is at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm, and here it is: --- Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. [...] * JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Television/Imaging Team Leader, Media Relations Office, Mail Stop 186-120, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA 91109, telephone (818) 354-5011, fax (818) 354-4537. [...] --- I believe that the Special Cases and restrictions are all fine and DFSG-free. Most likely I'm missing something obvious, but could clarify why you consider the above DFSG-free? It seems to me that it discriminates against a group (JPL/Caltech contractors) and against a field of endeavor (advertising/public relations), both of which would have to contact JPL before they can use the images. (IANAL, IANADD.) Martin
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: That's interesting. I propose the following license then. Is it free in your opinion? It doesn't technically violate any DFSG clauses, but I think it's self-evidently non-free, because it takes away fundamental freedoms. Anyone (you) may use, copy, modify, and distribute copies (modified or unmodified) of this software, provided that: (1) You must never say or write anything negative about the authors. (2) You agree never to exercise your fair use, fair dealing, or other similar rights regarding this software. (3) You agree not to use this program at all, in any way, without agreeing to this license. (3) You agree never to sue anyone over anything. (4) You agree to allow the authors to search your home and person without notice at any time. (5) You agree to waive your right to trial by jury in all criminal or civil cases brought against you. If you want this to be a licence, rather than a (common law) contract, which would probably require a signature or some communication between the parties, then you should probably phrase it differently, perhaps along the lines of: (1) This licence terminates if you ever say or write ... You would then have something practically equivalent to a licence subject to arbitrary termination. Incidently, and irrelevantly, if you wanted to make a contract like this, and you wanted it to work in practice, then apart from getting a signature on it you would probably also have to specify a sum of money that should be paid by the licensee if the licensee for some reason can't or doesn't fulfil the specified conditions. Otherwise it might be very hard for a court to assess damages in the case of non-performance of point 3, for example, and the uncertainty would be a burden for both parties. IANAL, of course.
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard writes: On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:35:54AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Do you not believe that would be better than the current situation where we have regular disagreements on some of this? No, I don't. More clearly: I don't think a situation where we're forced to read the DFSG as a set of rules (eg. like the OSD) is an improvement. I think adding guidelines which are already in the DFSG will move us in that direction. That is, adding a guideline must allow derived works on Tuesdays seems to imply that derived works on Tuesdays is not, in fact, covered by DFSG#3--as it clearly is. Clearly. Likeways, adding must not force distribution of source to anyone other than the recipient implies that this isn't already required by DFSG#1. And this is exactly the kind of thing that needs clearing up, and you know it. There is still significant debate about whether or not DFSG#1 actually means that. If we're actually going to do anything constructive about the license discussions here, then why not agree them and codify them _clearly_ in the DFSG? That way DDs looking for license guidance might actually be able to refer to the DFSG *alone* without having to spend ages waiting for a -legal debate to happen. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm afraid I'll miss my stop -- Vivek Dasmohapatra
Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, one of the clauses you have problems with, the court of venue, if waived, might limit their possibilities to defend against people not respecting the licence That is the whole problem with the venue clause. It makes it too easy for the original developers to harass distributors. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the case of the QPL, you have to give the initial author many more rights with the software than you had -- he can take it proprietary, and you can't. Also, no matter who you want to give those modifications to, you have to give that broad license to the upstream. Right. Why is this non-free? Base your answer on the DFSG. Brian I don't agree with your idea that the DFSG must describe Brian all ways in which licenses can be non-free. The wicked are Brian endlessly cunning. I think that in an ideal world all ways in which a license is non-free should have a basis in the DFSG. Here are some reasons why we'd want this to be true. First, some honest, well meaning people will read the DFSG and try to make sure their licenses follow the DFSG before submitting their license to Debian. We want to encourage such people and work with them. No, we don't. We don't want people to write new licenses. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution to him, not promises to obey the license. Actually it was MJ Ray who applied the promisary definition to the idea of a fee, and I was trying to see whether or not that definition really seems to hold with our interpretation of the freeness. As it is, I see that definition as conflicting with any sort of non-public domain software because it implies some sort of behavioral constraints upon the lessor (which constitute a promise). What then defines the term fee such that the GPL does not demand one where the QPL does? There is a promise -- a contract -- which comes into existence when I distribute modifications. I promise to hold copies of those forever in order to supply the initial author with copies on request. So is the timeframe (i.e. forever) important? - David Nusinow
Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Martin Dickopp wrote: * JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Television/Imaging Team Leader, Media Relations Office, Mail Stop 186-120, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA 91109, telephone (818) 354-5011, fax (818) 354-4537. Most likely I'm missing something obvious, but could clarify why you consider the above DFSG-free? It seems to me that it discriminates against a group (JPL/Caltech contractors) and against a field of endeavor (advertising/public relations), both of which would have to contact JPL before they can use the images. The way I read this license, an earlier paragraph prohibits use of the images to imply endorsement by NASA (This is DFSG-free because it prohibits something which isn't allowed anyway.) The paragraph about the JPL contractors is an exception which grants extra permission--normally you can't use images this way at all, but if you're a contractor, you can do so by asking. It is worded badly. Instead of saying contractors who wish to use JPL images in ways that imply NASA endorsement should... it uses the generic phrase in advertising. It appears to have been written under the assumption that using the images in advertising automatically implies NASA endorsement. The way it's worded isn't DFSG-free, but I don't think they really meant to give non-contractors more rights than contractors. Someone (not me) probably should ask them what they really meant. The license also says that the person who downloads the images from the web site agrees, blah blah. Going by the literal wording of this license, only the person who downloads the images has to abide by those terms. He can then give the images to someone else and that person would not have to follow the terms. I don't think they could have meant that either.
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:35:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: And this is exactly the kind of thing that needs clearing up, and you know it. There is still significant debate about whether or not DFSG#1 actually means that. If we're actually going to do anything constructive about the license discussions here, then why not agree them and codify them _clearly_ in the DFSG? That way DDs looking for license guidance might actually be able to refer to the DFSG *alone* without having to spend ages waiting for a -legal debate to happen. I don't think adding lots of new guidelines to the DFSG, codifying the entire body of d-legal case law, and forcing d-legal to put every discussion to a GR, is a workable solution; and that's what I see following from this. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard writes: On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:35:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: If we're actually going to do anything constructive about the license discussions here, then why not agree them and codify them _clearly_ in the DFSG? That way DDs looking for license guidance might actually be able to refer to the DFSG *alone* without having to spend ages waiting for a -legal debate to happen. I don't think adding lots of new guidelines to the DFSG, codifying the entire body of d-legal case law, and forcing d-legal to put every discussion to a GR, is a workable solution; and that's what I see following from this. It doesn't have to go _that_ far. What _is_ needed is some discussion, agreement and documentation of common principles and license clauses in the correct place. Things like the choice of venue clause and forced source distribution clauses. Despite some opinions here, arguments about those cannot be unequivaocally tied to the DFSG - if they could, we wouldn't be having the debate about the QPL that's been going on for the last few weeks. Whether you like it or not, the DFSG is the document that all DDs have agreed to use as a guide on software freedom; anything else is merely unsupported opinion. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten. -- Malcolm Ray
Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
- Josh Triplett
Trademarks are fundamentally different from copyrights. Things which are
too small for copyright protection (dictionary words ('windows', 'shell'
for example), geometric symbols, etc.) are still trademarkable. As I
understand it, you don't need to be the author of a trademark, merely
the one trading under it, to have trademark rights.
In addition, the very act of using a symbol, word, etc. as a trademark
gives it legal protection. The license :
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Trademark license:
You may use this logo or a modified version of it to refer to
Debian. You
may not use this logo, or any confusingly similar logo, to refer to
anything else in a way which might cause confusion with Debian.
Final clarification:
(If you have a modified version of this logo which is not confusingly
similar to the original, you may use it for any purpose.)
Is simply stating the protection trademarks have under the law anyway.
The Debian logo (and the word 'Debian') is already licensed under such a
trademark license, simply because Debian has been trading under it.
I am aware that trademarks are quite different from copyrights.
However, the legal mechanism used to restrict freedoms is not important;
the only matter to consider is whether the work grants all the necessary
freedoms. I do not believe that Debian would accept a copyright license
that said you may only use this logo to refer to our company, unless
you modify it to be sufficiently different, so I don't think Debian
should accept such a trademark license either. I do understand that
this makes using the logos as an identifying mark difficult.
Many distributions have a distroname-artwork package that is
completely non-free, and even non-redistributable. I do not believe
Debian should exempt its artwork from the DFSG, especially if we wish to
promote the all _works_ should be Free, not just programs stance
(which I entirely agree with).
Here is my suggested logo trademark license, which I think would be
DFSG-free (if coupled with a DFSG-free copyright license):
* You may use this logo to refer to the Debian Project or to official
unmodified Debian products.
* You may use this logo to refer to modified Debian products, if the
modified product is clearly and unambiguously identified as unofficial
and not endorsed by Debian.
* You may use this logo for any other purpose, if you clearly and
unambiguously identify the origin of the logo as being the Debian logo,
and you do not imply any endorsement of or affiliation with Debian.
* You may use modified versions of the logo under any of these
circumstances, if you clearly and unambiguously identify the origin of
the logo as being the Debian logo, and satisfy the requirements for
using the unmodified logo above.
(Perhaps conspicuously should also be added in addition to clearly
and unambiguously.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there were, would we consider the GPL non-free? It certainly wouldn't be free in that jurisdiction. Whether Debian decides to care about such jurisdicitions is, to some degree, a policy decision. The thing about privacy is that it affects people in _every_ jurisdiction, so checking a license for whether it violates your privacy helps everyone. But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with hostile governments. Which happens to be all jurisdictions. Some of them don't shoot you, just fine you or put you in jail (e.g. DMCA). But every jurisdiction has bad laws. Which suggests (again) that the dissident test doesn't actually represent the statement you're trying to make. Come again? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
- Original Message - From: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium snip Copyright subsists automatically in photographs in most countries (apparently not Canada, I hear). The statement above about Canada is incorrect. See, e.g., definition of artistic works here http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38965.html#rid-38971
Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
that. I think you meant that dictionary words can't be trademarked where
those words are clearly descriptive of the goods and services in association
with which they are associated.
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:34:08PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
- Josh Triplett
Trademarks are fundamentally different from copyrights. Things which are
too small for copyright protection (dictionary words ('windows', 'shell'
for example), geometric symbols, etc.) are still trademarkable.
You cannot trademark a dictionary word. Microsoft *lost* that lawsuit.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
Re: Free Debian logos?
We allow others to specify that if their work is modified, the modifier must change the name. We try to narrowly tailor such clauses when they're proposed, but we do allow it. The logo is Debian's name -- just not in English. It represents Debian just as much as the word Debian does. So even by a copyright license, we'd allow others to insist that their names or logos are changed. Alternately to issuing a license to use the trademark for non-confusing purposes, Debian could issue no trademark license at all. In that case, either Debian would lose its trademark rights, or it would have to enforce the default trademark rights against those who used the logo. Neither is free. The proposed license, I think, is as free as you can make a trademark license. Remember that some sorts of trademark license can cost the owner the trademark. I don't think we want to push Debian or others towards those. As to your proposed license: * You may use modified versions of the logo under any of these circumstances, if you clearly and unambiguously identify the origin of the logo as being the Debian logo, and satisfy the requirements for using the unmodified logo above. I don't think that's Free. It may just be as un-free as a patch clause, and so DFSG-free. But it means I can't make a new logo, no matter how different, which includes a modified copy of the Debian logo, no matter how distinct. I do think that clearly and unambiguously are either strict enough to be non-free, or lawyer-bombs if it's argued that there's latitude there. Does that require a message in the image? In multiple languages? Also, you probably mean imply any *false* endorsement *by* or affiliation with Debian -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
