Open Non-Software Free Projects
( Please do not consider this message as a spam. We may remove your e-mail address from our list ) Dears, We have found websites registered by free or open source. what have we to do for our website ? Our website's content is a non-software open detailed and free project. Open projects for lighting manufacturers ! Post-top and overhead CutOff luminaires (luminarias), low-voltage overhead fixtures are already available now. Please look-up at all. NO PAY required !! The use of images with original content for technical applications, as well as the manufacturing of pieces using this images, is unrestricted. http://luminaires-projects.netfirms.com Standard Post-top full open mechanical drawings details !! Your comments will be very useful for us because we intend to perform a larger open detailed free project...! Best wishes ! Yours. _ In the market for a car? Buy, sell or browse at CarPoint: http://server-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/b?cg=linkci=ninemsntu=http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au?refid=hotmail_tagline
Re: Can the JRockit JVM go into non-free?
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004, Johan Walles wrote: I've filed RFP 273693 about the JRockit virtual machine for Java. JRockit is definitely non-free, but what I'd like to know is whether the re-distribution agreement is good enough for it to go into non-free if someone wants to package it. I've attached the re-distribution license terms to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=273693;. They are in MS Word format, but open nicely in OpenOffice. First off, if you wish us to discuss a license, please include the whole text. I'm going to forgo doing this, because the license is rediculously huge, and I think it's trivially not good enough for non-free. So what do you say? Are the terms good enough for non-free? Doesn't look it to me. THIS JROCKIT BINARY RE-DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (this Agreement) is entered into and effective as of the ___ day of __, 200__ (Effective Date) by and between BEA Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 2315 North First Street, San Jose, California 95131 (BEA) and , a corporation with its principal place of business at ___ _ (Distributor). Mmmm... I smell a contract. Value Added Solution(s) means the Distributor product(s) or service(s) which Distributor must bundle with the Software prior to distribution under this Agreement. 2.2 Restriction. Each Value Added Solution must significantly enhance the features and/or functionality of the Software. I'm not sure that Debian qualifies as a Value Added Solution as we don't bundle non-free with Debian. |BEA Systems, Inc. (BEA) |(Distributor)| |a Delaware corporation |a| |corporation| |Address for Notices:|Address for Notices: | |2315 North First Street | | |San Jose, California 95131 | | |Attenti|Office of the General |Attent| | |on:|Counsel |ion: | | |Phone: |408-570-8000|Phone:| | |Fax: |408-570-8901|Fax: | | |URL: |http://www.bea.com |URL: | | Uh, they want us to sign something to be able to distribute this? I doubt our mirror operators and ftpmater will agree. The user agreement itself is pretty bad as well, but since it doesn't include permision to redistribute at all, it's pointless to discuss. Don Armstrong -- People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide. -- John Brown, DEA Chief http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
JRockit in non-free, part II
I'm unforturnately unable to post the license agreement in text format to either this list or to the RFP; it seems as if it gets eaten by a spam-filter along the way. I've contacted the listmaster though, so we'll see what happens. In the mean time I'll be happy to send my textified version off-line to anybody who's interested. Also, I'm now subscribing to debian-legal, so I'll be able to reply properly in-thread. Anyway, until I manage to post the license agreement I'd like to answer some of the (other) concerns I've seen. First of all, if the re-distribution terms aren't satisfactory in some respect the terms can probably be negotiated. I'm working for BEA, and I know that BEA would like to have JRockit more widely distributed. Note that I'm not the one deciding on these terms, but if debian-legal can decide upon things that need to be changed before JRockit can go into non-free, I can pass that on. I don't think there's a problem with the value added solution(s) that is supposed to be service(s) which Distributor must bundle with the Software. The clause sounds a bit useless, but even though non-free isn't bundled with Debian, non-free is still a service provided to users of Debian. The service being that it's a lot easier for Debian users to install stuff from non-free than to get it from somewhere else. As for the signing, that only has to be done by one Debian representative. This would be the package maintainer. The mirroring network is covered by paragraph 2.1: distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, so they don't need to sign anything. Also, since I'm really unsure about what the requirements actually are to get into non-free, is the EULA forbidding re-distribution a show-stopper? I guessed that as long as Debian was allowed to redistribute, forbidding end-users to re-distribute was more of a nuisance to the end-users than a show-stopper for JRockit going into non-free. Regards //Johan -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
O Mércores, 6 de Outubro de 2004 ás 04:24:31 -0700, Johan Walles escribía: Also, since I'm really unsure about what the requirements actually are to get into non-free, is the EULA forbidding re-distribution a show-stopper? I guessed that as long as Debian was allowed to redistribute, forbidding end-users to re-distribute was more of a nuisance to the end-users than a show-stopper for JRockit going into non-free. It is, since it's not Debian who is doing the redistribution, but the ftpmasters of the mirror sites who choose to carry non-free. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
But wouldn't that be covered by paragraph 2.1? 2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and (ii) sublicense and distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, for use by End Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement. Shouldn't the mirrorers be covered by the phrase indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors? //Johan -Original Message- From: Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:35:28 +0200 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II O Mércores, 6 de Outubro de 2004 ás 04:24:31 -0700, Johan Walles escribía: Also, since I'm really unsure about what the requirements actually are to get into non-free, is the EULA forbidding re-distribution a show-stopper? I guessed that as long as Debian was allowed to redistribute, forbidding end-users to re-distribute was more of a nuisance to the end-users than a show-stopper for JRockit going into non-free. It is, since it's not Debian who is doing the redistribution, but the ftpmasters of the mirror sites who choose to carry non-free. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Scripsit Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for the signing, that only has to be done by one Debian representative. There is no such thing - Debian is not a legal entity, so nobody is qualified to sign legal stuff on its behalf. -- Henning MakholmVi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foreslå, at vi fra Kulturministeriets side sørger for at fremsende tallene og også give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man læser tallene. Tak for i dag!
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't even enough for non-free. Johan: if you can get BEA to license it under terms which amount to Begin license. Any recipient may distribute this code without royalty. End of License. then it can go in non-free. But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that Debian, its mirrors, users, and forkers be able to distribute code. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
AFAIU, this could be a show-stopper. I'm working on having the EULA changed, but I'll have to get back to you if / when this happens. //Johan -Original Message- From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: 06 Oct 2004 14:54:10 +0100 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Scripsit Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for the signing, that only has to be done by one Debian representative. There is no such thing - Debian is not a legal entity, so nobody is qualified to sign legal stuff on its behalf. -- Henning MakholmVi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foreslå, at vi fra Kulturministeriets side sørger for at fremsende tallene og også give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man læser tallene. Tak for i dag! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
-Original Message- From: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:21:14 -0400 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't even enough for non-free. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this would be so? [...] But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that Debian, its mirrors, users, and forkers be able to distribute code. By section 2.1, mirrors wouldn't have a problem: 2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and (ii) sublicense and distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, for use by End Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement. Mirrors would be covered by indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors. Forkers would have to sign their own redistribution agreement. I'll wait with covering end-users until I understand why it would be required to let them re-distribute :-). Regards //Johan -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Gotcha. Looks like a show-stopper to me. //Johan -Original Message- From: Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:59:28 + Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for the signing, that only has to be done by one Debian representative. This would be the package maintainer. The mirroring network is covered by paragraph 2.1: distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, so they don't need to sign anything. Quoth the Policy, section 2.3: We reserve the right to restrict files from being included anywhere in our archives if * their use or distribution would break a law, * there is an ethical conflict in their distribution or use, * we would have to sign a license for them, or * their distribution would conflict with other project policies. -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Johan: if you can get BEA to license it under terms which amount to Begin license. Any recipient may distribute this code without royalty. End of License. then it can go in non-free. But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that Debian, its mirrors, users, and forkers be able to distribute code. Huh? I have always understood that there were only two criteria for going into non-free: 1. That the Debian mirror network can legally distribute the source and binary packages. 2. That there is a developer who is willing to maintain the package to a reasonable standard of non-bugginess. As a specific example, it is not required that non-free packages allow distribution by for-profit CD vendors, and somewhere we have an explicit warning to CD vendors that they should not distribute our non-free archive without checking the license of each individual package to find out whether they are legally allowed to do so. Distribution permission for users and forkers (sic!) are freedom tests which must be present for the package to go to contrib or main. They are not necessary for non-free - in general non-free packages do not need to even allow forkers. Similarly the specific to Debian bit is for DFSG freedom and not necessary for the non-free archive either. -- Henning Makholm Jeg forstår mig på at anvende sådanne midler på folks legemer, at jeg kan varme eller afkøle dem, som jeg vil, og få dem til at kaste op, hvis det er det, jeg vil, eller give afføring og meget andet af den slags.
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:21:14 -0400 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't even enough for non-free. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this would be so? Because Debian would have signed it, but nobody else would have. Debian would have executed a contract, in which in return for consideration BEA granted a licence to Debian. Nobody else would have received that license. [...] But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that Debian, its mirrors, users, and forkers be able to distribute code. By section 2.1, mirrors wouldn't have a problem: 2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and (ii) sublicense and distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, for use by End Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement. Nope. Mirrors don't get agreement from end users, and Debian has no interest in forcing end users to agree to anything. Mirrors are also not merely distributors -- consider some Mirror shipping this software in one place and some sort of Value-Added Solution in another. Mirrors would be covered by indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors. Forkers would have to sign their own redistribution agreement. I'll wait with covering end-users until I understand why it would be required to let them re-distribute :-). What if an end-user starts up his own mirror? Not all the mirrors are registered with Debian. For example, many colleges and companies run private Debian mirrors, distributing only to their students or employees. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Johan: if you can get BEA to license it under terms which amount to Begin license. Any recipient may distribute this code without royalty. End of License. then it can go in non-free. But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that Debian, its mirrors, users, and forkers be able to distribute code. Huh? I have always understood that there were only two criteria for going into non-free: 1. That the Debian mirror network can legally distribute the source and binary packages. I don't think it's just the registered mirrors that must be able to distribute. Rather, the whole mirror network, including the parts that are unambiguously Not Debian and not bound in any way to obey Debian's wishes, must be able to distribute. Similarly the specific to Debian bit is for DFSG freedom and not necessary for the non-free archive either. It is because of the mirror network. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Huh? I have always understood that there were only two criteria for going into non-free: 1. That the Debian mirror network can legally distribute the source and binary packages. I don't think it's just the registered mirrors that must be able to distribute. Rather, the whole mirror network, including the parts that are unambiguously Not Debian and not bound in any way to obey Debian's wishes, must be able to distribute. Yes. But there is no need for the package to be distributable in any other context than a mirror of the Debian archive. Similarly the specific to Debian bit is for DFSG freedom and not necessary for the non-free archive either. It is because of the mirror network. No. -- Henning Makholm The great secret, known to internists and learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but still hidden from the general public, is that most things get better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning.
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't even enough for non-free. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this would be so? Because Debian would have signed it, There is nothing in the phrase a Debian-specific licence that implies that anything has been signed by Debian (whatever that means). An unilateral declaration saying I hereby allow my program Foomatic to be distributed in source and binary from by all Debian mirrors is a Debian-specific license. It is perfectly good for non-free even if it is light-years from contrib or mein. -- Henning MakholmI have seen men with a *fraction* of your trauma pray to their deity for death's release. And when death doesn't arrive immediately, they reject their deity and begin to beg to another.
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Huh? I have always understood that there were only two criteria for going into non-free: 1. That the Debian mirror network can legally distribute the source and binary packages. I don't think it's just the registered mirrors that must be able to distribute. Rather, the whole mirror network, including the parts that are unambiguously Not Debian and not bound in any way to obey Debian's wishes, must be able to distribute. Yes. But there is no need for the package to be distributable in any other context than a mirror of the Debian archive. Sure there is -- in the context of a partial mirror, for example, or in the context of a mirror which also distributes other things. Similarly the specific to Debian bit is for DFSG freedom and not necessary for the non-free archive either. It is because of the mirror network. No. But the mirror network isn't part of Debian. They won't have signed this. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenOffice.org (LGPL) and hspell (GPL)
Hi, Josh Triplett wrote: I think the ideal solution would be to change hspell so that it can build outside of the OO.o source tree; as far as I know, it is OK to have some GPLed and some non-free plugins for the same LGPLed program, as long as they are not all distributed together. The hspell component uses the normal hspell lib (no problem here if we build from the hspell sourcepkg). But it also uses private headers and libraries from OpenOffice.org. The libraries are in openoffice.org-bin but the headers not in -dev. We could put all headers into -dev but I don't think this is a grandious idea wrt size and there probably is a reason why those headers don't appear in the SDK... Well, so it could only be built from hspell and not from us, so we can't fix that bug yet easily. Pity.. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes. But there is no need for the package to be distributable in any other context than a mirror of the Debian archive. Sure there is -- in the context of a partial mirror, for example, or in the context of a mirror which also distributes other things. True, a partial mirror should probably also be covered. (At least when the partiality consists of excluding certain architectures. If certain *packages* are excluded, it would probably be a good idea to exclude the non-free archive too). Similarly the specific to Debian bit is for DFSG freedom and not necessary for the non-free archive either. It is because of the mirror network. No. But the mirror network isn't part of Debian. They won't have signed this. Again, there is nothing in specific to Debian that implies anything about anything being signed by anyone. If it can be distributed by th mirrors of the Debian archive, then it's OK for non-free, even if the permission to distribute through Debian mirrors is specific to Debian. -- Henning Makholm I have something I use for one. It serves my simple purposes.
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't even enough for non-free. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this would be so? Because Debian would have signed it, There is nothing in the phrase a Debian-specific licence that implies that anything has been signed by Debian (whatever that means). Um. While true, that has the wrong causality. That Debian has a license only because it has somehow signed something *does* imply that it's a Debian-specific license. An unilateral declaration saying I hereby allow my program Foomatic to be distributed in source and binary from by all Debian mirrors is a Debian-specific license. It is perfectly good for non-free even if it is light-years from contrib or mein. That would make me very nervous, as a mirror operator. But OK. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote: Robert Millan wrote: lib/atanl.c lib/logl.c If you look into the glibc CVS log of sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_atanl.c and sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_logl.c, you see that the copyright holder (Stephen Moshier) has given permission to license them under LGPL. lib/diacrit.c This comes from Fran?ois Pinard's libit-0.2, which is GPL. lib/alloca.c A long-time GNU citizen, distributed as part of many GNU packages. lib/lbrkprop.h For these borrowed files from other GNU or free software projects, I think we still need an explicit note in the files distributed as part of gnulib. Could you please add the license header that corresponds to the license terms of the package from which it was borrowed to these files? IANAL, but I think you can legaly do that. This is an automatically generated file. It's ridiculous to put a copyright license on an automatically generated file if the generating program is available under GPL, since anyone could take that generating program, modify its printf() statements to emit a different license, and run the generating program. I don't know how does copyright law apply to auto-generated programs. Maybe debian-legal can offer advice on this. tests/test-stpncpy.c I've put this under GPL now. Ack. Thanks! The worst problem, however, is in the m4 and modules directories, where most of the files are unlicensed. For the m4 files, I propose to add the standard notice to them: [...] Well let's see how the GPL vs LGPL discussion ends up. I don't really have a take on this. About the modules/ files. I wrote most of them. What kind of copyright would you find useful, given that it's only meta-information? I think when they're copyright-significant GPL would be fine. However, my suggestion is that you set the global COPYING file to say GPL unless stated otherwise. This way we can avoid trouble with copyright-significant misc files like READMEs and such. Oh right, standards.texi is under GFDL. So this means that Debian will not ship the GNU standards in the next release? There's no official statement on this, but the situation is that they may be included with sarge (at the maintainer's discretion) but not for later releases, when the new DFSG that unambigously applies to documentation takes place (see http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004). -- .''`. Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S) : :' : `. `'http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu `-
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:24:31AM -0700, Johan Walles wrote: I'm unforturnately unable to post the license agreement in text format to either this list or to the RFP; it seems as if it gets eaten by a spam-filter along the way. I've contacted the listmaster though, so we'll see what happens. In the mean time I'll be happy to send my textified version off-line to anybody who's interested. Why don't you just post it on people.d.o? --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For these borrowed files from other GNU or free software projects, I think we
still need an explicit note in the files distributed as part of gnulib.
OK, let's start with atanl.c and logl.c. I see that glibc has fixed
this problem by adding a proper copyright notice. Also, I see that
gnulib has departed from the glibc code in some cases where it doesn't
need to (and this arguably could introduce a bug). So I installed
the following patch to fix both problems.
2004-10-06 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* lib/atanl.c, lib/logl.c:
Add GPL notice, to match glibc's added LGPL notice.
* lib/atanl.c (atanl): Keep the code as similar to glibc as possible.
* lib/logl.c (logl): Keep the code as similar to glibc as possible.
This avoids a potential constant-folding bug.
Index: lib/atanl.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/atanl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -p -u -r1.1 atanl.c
--- lib/atanl.c 18 Feb 2003 17:05:23 - 1.1
+++ lib/atanl.c 6 Oct 2004 19:59:05 -
@@ -42,7 +42,22 @@
*
*/
-/* Copyright 2001 by Stephen L. Moshier [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
+/* Copyright 2001 by Stephen L. Moshier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
+ any later version.
+
+ This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ along with this program; see the file COPYING.
+ If not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
+ 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */
#include mathl.h
@@ -161,19 +176,25 @@ atanl (long double x)
int k, sign;
long double t, u, p, q;
- sign = (x 0) ? -1 : 1;
+ sign = x 0.0;
/* Check for zero or NaN. */
if (x != x || x == 0.0)
return x + x;
- /* Check for infinity. */
if (x + x == x)
-return sign * atantbl[83];
+{
+ /* Infinity. */
+ if (sign)
+ return -atantbl[83];
+ else
+ return atantbl[83];
+}
- x *= sign;
+ if (sign)
+ x = -x;
- if (x = 10.25) /* 10.25 */
+ if (x = 10.25)
{
k = 83;
t = -1.0/x;
@@ -196,5 +217,9 @@ atanl (long double x)
u = t * u * p / q + t;
/* arctan x = arctan u + arctan t */
- return sign * (atantbl[k] + u);
+ u = atantbl[k] + u;
+ if (sign)
+return (-u);
+ else
+return u;
}
Index: lib/logl.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/logl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -p -u -r1.1 logl.c
--- lib/logl.c 18 Feb 2003 17:05:23 - 1.1
+++ lib/logl.c 6 Oct 2004 19:59:05 -
@@ -46,7 +46,22 @@
#include mathl.h
-/* Copyright 2001 by Stephen L. Moshier [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
+/* Copyright 2001 by Stephen L. Moshier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
+ any later version.
+
+ This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ along with this program; see the file COPYING.
+ If not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
+ 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */
/* log(1+x) = x - .5 x^2 + x^3 l(x)
-.0078125 = x = +.0078125
@@ -173,7 +188,8 @@ static const long double
long double
logl(long double x)
{
- long double z, y, w, u, t;
+ long double z, y, w;
+ long double u, t;
unsigned int m;
int k, e;
@@ -181,15 +197,19 @@ logl(long double x)
/* log(0) = -infinity. */
if (x == 0.0L)
-return -0.5L / 0.0L;
-
+{
+ return -0.5L / ZERO;
+}
/* log ( x 0 ) = NaN */
if (x 0.0L)
-return (x - x) / (x - x);
-
+{
+ return (x - x) / ZERO;
+}
/* log (infinity or NaN) */
if (x + x == x || x != x)
-return x + x;
+{
+ return x + x;
+}
/* Extract exponent and reduce domain to 0.703125 = u 1.40625 */
x = frexpl(x, e);
@@ -202,13 +222,13 @@ logl(long double x)
/* On this interval the table is not used due to cancellation error. */
if ((x = 1.0078125L) (x = 0.9921875L))
{
+ z = x - 1.0L;
k = 64;
t = 1.0L;
- z = x - 1.0L;
}
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib / m4
Paul Eggert wrote: The purpose of the special exception clause is so that also non-GPLed packages can use autoconfiguration. Yes. However, that purpose doesn't apply to GPLed modules, as they can't be linked with non-GPLed packages. But since *.m4 files are often copied from one module to another, I prefer to give even the *.m4 files of GPLed modules a more liberal license. We want to encourage the use of configure scripts and of portable programs. That is an important goal, but (putting my RMS hat on :-) it is a secondary one for the GNU project. The main goal is freedom, not popularity. And ease-of-use for the Unix users? If non-GPLed packages fit into the ./configure; make; make install scheme that GNU has invented, the win is universal for all users. The question here is whether these m4 files are more like Emacs's .el files, or more like Autoconf's m4 files. They are more like Autoconf's m4 files, IMO. I see this special exception clause mostly as a clarification: Since *.m4 files are never linked into executables or libraries, they could also be used in non-LGPLed packages. But if the license doesn't explicitly say so, the authors of such packages will be afraid to use it. But for GPLed modules, this is intentional. We don't want people to use GPLed modules in non-GPLed applications. But we certainly want to have the license clause to be as clear as possible, no? (Since we are not lawyers who could earn money from a license dispute...) The question does come up: The vim author doesn't want to use *.m4 files from GNU because he thinks it would infect vim with GPL. So he makes up his own autoconf tests for iconv() and gettext(), which then don't work on half of the platforms or in half of the configurations. Bruno
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
To fix diacrit.h and diacrit.c I installed the obvious patch: 2004-10-06 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] * diacrit.c, diacrit.h: Add GPL notice. Index: diacrit.c === RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/diacrit.c,v retrieving revision 1.4 retrieving revision 1.5 diff -p -u -r1.4 -r1.5 --- diacrit.c 9 Aug 2004 21:11:34 - 1.4 +++ diacrit.c 6 Oct 2004 20:08:44 - 1.5 @@ -3,6 +3,21 @@ François Pinard [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1988. All this file is a temporary hack, waiting for locales in GNU. + + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) + any later version. + + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + GNU General Public License for more details. + + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + along with this program; see the file COPYING. + If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, + 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */ */ #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H Index: diacrit.h === RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/diacrit.h,v retrieving revision 1.4 retrieving revision 1.5 diff -p -u -r1.4 -r1.5 --- diacrit.h 9 Aug 2004 21:11:34 - 1.4 +++ diacrit.h 6 Oct 2004 20:08:56 - 1.5 @@ -3,6 +3,21 @@ François Pinard [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1988. All this file is a temporary hack, waiting for locales in GNU. + + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) + any later version. + + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + GNU General Public License for more details. + + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + along with this program; see the file COPYING. + If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, + 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */ */ extern const char diacrit_base[]; /* characters without diacritics */
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know how does copyright law apply to auto-generated programs. Maybe debian-legal can offer advice on this. The answer is it depends, so let me give a few more details about the file in question, so that debian-legal knows what we're talking about. While I'm at it I'll also give you my informed layperson's opinion. You can get the contents of the file here: http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/*checkout*/gnulib/gnulib/lib/lbrkprop.h?rev=HEADcontent-type=text/plain These contents are derived automatically from the Unicode Data Files, which are available from the Unicode Consortium under the Unicode Copyright http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html. The program that generates lbrkprop.h is GPL'ed, but none of this GPL'ed code survives in lbrkprop.h. lbrkprop.h merely consists of a small wrapper (about 15 lines of simple code, which are unprotectible by copyright in my opinion) followed by data which are automatically derived from the Unicode Data Files. Since pure data are not protected by copyright, and since the wrapper is so small as to be uncopyrightable, I think the entire file is in the public domain. So, I think your concerns would be allayed by a brief notice to this effect. Something like this, perhaps? /* Generated automatically by gen-lbrkprop for Unicode 3.1.0. */ /* This file is in the public domain; it is software derived from the Unicode Data Files under the terms of the Unicode Copyright. */ Bruno Haible writes: It's ridiculous to put a copyright license on an automatically generated file if the generating program is available under GPL, since anyone could take that generating program, modify its printf() statements to emit a different license, and run the generating program. It's not always ridiculous to do such a thing. For example, Bison is GPLed, but Bison puts a copyright notice (the GPL with a special exception) into the source-code files that it generates automatically. Users are of course free to modify Bison to emit a different license, but if they redistribute the resulting output in violation of the Bison terms, they are still in violation of Bison's license. So I'm afraid that we have to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis.
SPIN Public license
Hello all, I am planning to package an application covered by the Spin Public License. Could you tell me if this : http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/spin/SPIN_public_license.txt is a free or non-free license? Please CC me as I am not on the list. -- Regards, EddyP
Re: SPIN Public license
eddyp wrote: I am planning to package an application covered by the Spin Public License. Could you tell me if this : http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/spin/SPIN_public_license.txt is a free or non-free license? In general, when requesting that debian-legal review a license, it is preferable to include the text of the license in your mail, so that others may easily quote and review in followups. The text of the license at that address follows: LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. SPIN SOFTWARE PUBLIC LICENSE AGREEMENT PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE PROCEEDING. BY CLICKING ON THE ACCEPT BUTTON BELOW, OR BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, USING, COPYING, MODIFYING OR DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE OR DERIVATIVE WORKS THEREOF, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, CLICK ON THE DO NOT ACCEPT BUTTON BELOW AND THE INSTALLATION/DOWNLOAD PROCESS WILL NOT CONTINUE. 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 Agreement means this Lucent Technologies Inc. SPIN Software Public License Agreement. 1.2 Contributor(s) means any individual or entity that creates or contributes to a Modification of the Original Software. 1.3 Licensee means an individual or a legal entity entering into and exercising rights under this Agreement or future versions thereof. For the purposes hereunder, Licensee includes any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Licensee. For purposes of this definition, control means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise; or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the controlling shares or beneficial ownership of such entity. Licensee is also referred to herein as You. 1.4 Licensed Software means the Original Software, Modifications, or any combination of the Original Software and Modifications. 1.5 LUCENT means Lucent Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation having an office at 600 Mountain Ave., Murray Hill, NJ 07974, its related companies and/or affiliates. 1.6 SPIN Software means the source code for the logic model checking system named SPIN, developed, copyrighted, and distributed by LUCENT. 1.7 Modification(s) means any addition, deletion, change, or improvement to the Original Software or prior Modifications thereto. Modifications do not include additions to the Original Software or prior Modifications which (i) are separate modules of software which may be distributed in conjunction with Licensed Software; or (ii) are not derivative works of the Licensed Software itself. 1.8 Object Code means machine readable software code. 1.9 Original Contributor means LUCENT. 1.10 Original Software means the SPIN Software, in both Source Code form and Object Code form, and any associated documentation as originally developed by Original Contributor, and as originally furnished under this Agreement. 1.11 Recipient means any individual or legal entity receiving the Licensed Software under this Agreement, including all Contributors, or receiving the Licensed Software under another license agreement as authorized herein. 1.12 Source Code means human readable software code. 2.0 GRANT of Rights 2.1 Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Original Contributor grants to Licensee, a royalty-free, nonexclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license, subject to third party intellectual property claims, to use, reproduce, modify, execute, display, perform, distribute and sublicense, the Original Software (with or without Modifications) in Source Code form and/or Object Code form for commercial and/or non-commercial purposes subject to the terms of this Agreement. This grant includes a nonexclusive and non-transferable license under any patents which Original Contributor has a right to license and which, but for this license, are unavoidably and necessarily infringed by the execution of the inherent functionality of the Original Software in the form furnished under this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any existing or future patent claim which is directed to a combination of the functionality of the Original Software with the functionality of any other software programs, or a combination of hardware systems other than the combination of the Original Software and the hardware or firmware into which the Original Software is loaded. Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement, and may, at your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media. You may also, at your option, charge for any other software, product or service which includes or incorporates the Original Software
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:05:51AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: dirfd.h is just dirent boilerplate code plus two trivial #if blocks. Not worth worrying about, imho. The guts are in dirfd.m4. getpagesize.h was factored out of GPL'd code. I've added a copyright notice to each of those. Looks fine. Thanks Jim! -- .''`. Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S) : :' : `. `'http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu `-
Re: OpenOffice.org (LGPL) and hspell (GPL)
Rene Engelhard wrote: Josh Triplett wrote: I think the ideal solution would be to change hspell so that it can build outside of the OO.o source tree; as far as I know, it is OK to have some GPLed and some non-free plugins for the same LGPLed program, as long as they are not all distributed together. The hspell component uses the normal hspell lib (no problem here if we build from the hspell sourcepkg). But it also uses private headers and libraries from OpenOffice.org. The libraries are in openoffice.org-bin but the headers not in -dev. We could put all headers into -dev but I don't think this is a grandious idea wrt size and there probably is a reason why those headers don't appear in the SDK... How many such headers does it use? If the interface is not expected to change often, hspell could do what programs which need linux kernel headers must do: include the headers it needs in the source package. Well, so it could only be built from hspell and not from us, so we can't fix that bug yet easily. Pity.. The license would permit it, and a GPLed OO.o wouldn't be *that* troublesome; the only major consequence would be that oo.o-java would need to go away. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: SPIN Public license
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004, eddyp wrote: I am planning to package an application covered by the Spin Public License. is a free or non-free license? This license is not DFSG Free, and is most likely not suitable for inclusion in non-free either. It was most recently discussed here: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/thread/20040130.042108.fd756a5d.en.html Andrew Suffield lambasted the license authors here: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040130.050608.e083c434.en.html and I followed suit here with explanations of which clauses fail the DFSG: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040130.062427.f5d7d3e8.en.html Don Armstrong -- Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept. -- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
