Re: BCFG Public License
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. Plus, it's got some other wording -- is it OK? I'm not sure. Do any of you have any tips on what I might say to the author regarding dropping the advertising clause? I'd look on www.fsf.org for their arguments against the BSD+ad. [...] 4. All advertising materials, journal articles and documentation mentioning features derived from or use of the Software must display the following acknowledgment: This is more than just the documentation and advertising of the Software. It includes journal articles which mearly mention use of it - is that contaminating unrelated software? I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license statement. Freedom of software should also apply to people who don't agree with US export laws. I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] What the statement reduces to is: licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions, and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may be consequences Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a restriction. Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something if that is not what it means? It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree. `dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there may be issues around export controls in one country. Agreeing to a 'may' clause is in any event a non-issue. It's not like the license says you must follow the rules around those export controls. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow the DFSG. I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere. I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license. I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it. Neither of these are freeness issues. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However, the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so he is barred from using the software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Ken Arromdee said: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However, the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so he is barred from using the software. I don't think you've read what you're replying to. If your hypothetical person is working to overturn a law, then there is an a priori acknowledgement that the law exists, correct? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed new IETF license
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The IETF lawyer has written a proposal for a new outbound license to third parties for IETF documents (i.e., most RFCs and I-D). We're given one week to review it in a working group last call. Most likely there will be an IETF-wide last call later on too, but the chances of modifying anything then will be smaller. When reviewing the license, note that IETF works in a peculiar way with regards to copying conditions -- the copyright stays with the original author, but the author grants the IETF Trust many rights, which in turn grants third parties some rights. The entire document is available from: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-07.txt The document updates RFC 3978, and the license below make explicit references to sections 5 and 5.2 of RFC 3978: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3978.txt There are two parts to review. The first is where authors grant rights to the IETF Trust: 3.3. Rights Granted by Contributors to IETF Trust To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright or other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the IETF Trust under all such copyrights and other rights in the Contribution, provided that the IETF Trust shall have the right to sublicense these rights solely to the extent described in Section 3.7 and 3.8 below: (A) to copy, publish, display, and distribute the Contribution, in whole or in part, (B) to prepare translations of the Contribution into languages other than English, and to copy, publish, display, and distribute such translations or portions thereof, (C) unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a Contribution [as per Section 5.2 below], to modify or prepare derivative works (in addition to translations) that are based on or incorporate all or part of the Contribution, and to copy, publish, display, and distribute such derivative works, and (D) to reproduce any trademarks, service marks or trade names which are included in the Contribution solely in connection with the reproduction, distribution or publication of the Contribution and derivative works thereof as permitted by this Section 3.3, provided that when reproducing Contributions, trademark and service mark identifiers used in the Contribution, including TM and (r) will be preserved. The licenses granted in this Section 3.3 shall not be deemed to grant any right under any patent, patent application or other similar intellectual property right disclosed by the Contributor under BCP 79 or otherwise. The next part to review is the license granted from the IETF Trust to third parties: 3.8 Rights Granted by the IETF Trust to Third Parties The IETF Trust hereby grants to any person wishing to obtain such rights, to the greatest extent it is permitted to do so, the following perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide rights and licenses under all copyrights and other rights of authors, which rights may be exercised within or outside the IETF Standards Process: (A) to copy, publish, display, and distribute each IETF Document (including all Contributions and other portions thereof) in unmodified form, (B) to prepare translations of IETF Documents (including all Contributions and other portions thereof) into languages other than English, and to copy, publish, display, and distribute such translations, (C) to extract, modify, incorporate into other works, copy, publish, display, and distribute executable code or code fragments that are included in any IETF Document (such as MIB and PIB modules), subject to the notification requirements of Section 5. Giving past experience, it is not likely that we will be able to influence the text in any significant detail. Review should probably focus on high-level issues which are serious. My opinion is that the above license is not sufficient for RFC documents to be distributed with Debian, but it is sufficient for code fragments extracted from RFCs to be distributed with Debian. If you disagree with the last part (which is definitely possible -- I have only reviewed the license myself for an hour or so), which is the most important aspect right now, please motivate this carefully. This is only slightly better than the current version. Why did not not choose the text you suggested? That was far better. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Ken Arromdee writes: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However, the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so he is barred from using the software. The license demands that a licensor agree that the US government might criminally prosecute him for prohibited exports from the United States (the license says OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA). Good luck arguing against that broad statement; there are plenty of cases where goods -- such as military surplus missile launchers -- are export controlled with no viable constitutional question and some, probably smaller, number of cases where technical data are validly export controlled. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
On 29 Jul 2006, Michael Poole wrote: The license demands that a licensor agree that the US government might criminally prosecute him for prohibited exports from the United States (the license says OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA). Good luck arguing against that broad statement; there are plenty of cases where goods -- such as military surplus missile launchers -- are export controlled with no viable constitutional question and some, probably smaller, number of cases where technical data are validly export controlled. So you're saying that the clause would be satisfied if the user agrees that goods other than the program are subject to export law, even if he believes the program itself isn't? I suppose that's a valid way to read it, but it does seem strange. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I completely disagree with it Please quote the section of the license that states that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I completely disagree with it Please quote the section of the license that states that. # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. -- Henning Makholm Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte. Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something if that is not what it means? It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree. `dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there may be issues around export controls in one country. You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I completely disagree with it, and that agreeing in the license's strange use means nothing at all. Why do you think that the license wants me to do something that according to you does not entail doing anything after all? That does not make sense; the licensor would not have written the clause unless he intended it to restrict what I can do. Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
George Danchev wrote: On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. Agree can have two (actually more) meanings. In the context of this license, you don't have to agree that the law is right or just (agree with it), merely that it exists, as a statement of fact (Agree that the the facts stated are true). The facts that are stated are that the law declares x, y, and z. signature.asc Description: PGP signature signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion. The authors of the license are not asking you to agree with the idea of export licensing. They are asking you to agree to the following statement: As things currently stand in the us, there are some things subject to export licensing. If you export $thing, you can either first get a license, or you may get in trouble with the government. The 'require' comes from the US governement, not the authors of the license. I think we can both agree that the author's assessment matches current reality, so it doesn't seem worth debating that. Finally, failure to get the license may (only may, not will, must, or even 'really should') get you in trouble under US laws, and in no way affects your status as licensee. Does that clear things up? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please quote the section of the license that states that. # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. In this sense, AGREES is synonymous with ACKNOWLEDGES. If you read it like that, are you happier? What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement, which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what the catch is. At least I know what opinions I have. If Licensee agrees does not mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I have acknowledged the law in a proper manner that allows me to use the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. -- Henning MakholmDetta, sade de, vore rena sanningen; ty de kunde tala sanning lika väl som någon annan, när de bara visste vad det tjänade til. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while the advertising clause was not removed until 1999. However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please quote the section of the license that states that. # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. In this sense, AGREES is synonymous with ACKNOWLEDGES. If you read it like that, are you happier? What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement, which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what the catch is. It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they can point at that license and say See! We warned them! It's not our fault They don't want to get sued by someone claiming that it's their responsibility for not informing that person of the legal risk. At least I know what opinions I have. If Licensee agrees does not mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I have acknowledged the law in a proper manner that allows me to use the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist. HTH, Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
