Re: Bug#350624: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Jun 2, 2:15pm, Steve Langasek wrote: Actually, I must take this back; it's almost certain that ftpmaster did not approve this, Er, isn't that what AJ's closure message *is*? It most certainly is. Pawel -- (___) | Pawel Wiecek - Coven / Svart - | o o | http://www.coven.vmh.net/[EMAIL PROTECTED]GSM: +48603240006 | \ ^ / | GPG/PGP info in message headers * [ Debian GNU/Linux developer ] | () | * * Life's not fair, but the root password helps. -- BOFH | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Since it was requested, allow me to put forward a simple example of a case where choice of venue coupled with choice of law is suboptimal. Star is licensed under a modified CDDL license, which specifies Berlin, Germany as the choice of law and venue. If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the license under 6.1, and bring action in Berlin for copyright infringement; the maintainer and any other parties to the action (people to whom the work was distributed after notification of breech) would then have to defend themselves in Berlin instead of notifying the court that the venue was improper (or whatever the German equivalent is.) Considering the saber rattling that has come from star's upstream over precisely this issue in cdrecord, it's not so far fetched. On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. Contracts and licenses in general short-circuit the normal determination of rights under common or legislated law in some jurisdictions in some cases too. Of course; this is a refutation of the thesis that choice of venue clauses are legally void, not a claim that they are unique. Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such fails DFSG 1. You're not giving up any rights, you're gaining the right to modify and distribute the software under certain conditions, just as you are under the GPL. We don't give up rights under the GPL that we otherwise enjoy though; we only gain ones in specific circumstances. In the case of the CDDL, we lose rights even in the case where we're only using the work. You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something more than that to violate the DFSG. giving up something that you might value [or] otherwise demand compensation for applies equally well to cash money as it does to any other intangible which has value. A requirement to send an email to the licensor if you possibly can isn't cash money either, but it sure seems to be a fee to me. The DFSG are a set of *guidelines*, if you can't explain violations in simple, understandable terms, they're not violations. This is my understanding as well; I'm only explaining the application to DFSG 1 to attempt to appease strict constructionists. I'm personally using feel as shorthand for my understanding of the legal situtation regarding this clause and its relation to the DFSG That's great, but *your understanding* isn't any more important than anyone else's. I'm not claiming that it is; my point is that my understanding is not *less* important than anyone else's. I've done what everyone should do to come to an understanding. There's something fundamentally wrong with the way discussions work on debian-legal that people think that simply posting their understanding is a valuable contribution. What else can we do? We take input, we examine it, we respond with our understanding of how the input meshes together. I don't believe we're capable of presenting absolute truth. The reason why it's not is that it doesn't provide any good way of resolving disagreements: you can either revert to authority (such as ftpmaster's), you can resort to polls (such as a GR or an informal one on forums.debian.net), or you can attack people who hold different opinions in the hopes that they'll stop speaking and thus not be heard in future. Or we can try to understand the basis for our positions, and either come to a place where we agree, or have completely plumbed the argument so that we agree to disagree. This is my goal. I don't believe we've come to this position on the CDDL yet. If we end up agreeing to disagree, then we should punt, and use the GR process to decide whether the work goes in main or not, and have each side write up a explanation of the problems surrounding the license, and publicise it with those that agree signing on to it. implying that other people aren't sufficiently concerned about licensing matters, aren't actually engag[ing] the analysis with counter arguments, don't have a complete understanding of the problem in order to stop them mak[ing] a determination sounds like a pretty good match for the last case. It's very much the opposite, actually. I'd like nothing more than to have people who disagree with my understanding attack the rationale behind my understanding so at the end of the day, no matter how wrong my understanding starts, I end up getting things right. I like to believe that many -legal contributors have this mindset as well. Ultimately Debian's policy isn't going to be decided by whoever understands legal
Re: Opinions on Paul Hsieh derivative license
Ben Finney wrote: Paul Cager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Copyright (C) 2005, 2006 The MyServer Team 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 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. So, with this, the terms require that the redistributor must license under the terms of the GPL, with no further restrictions. The superFastHash hash function [is] released under the Paul Hsieh derivative license [...] If this license requires restrictions additional to those in the GPL, then it is GPL-incompatible and cannot be redistributed under either license. Paul Hsieh derivative license [...] Use and redistribution is limited to the following conditions: * One may not create a derivative work which, in any way, violates the Paul Hsieh exposition license described above on the original content. [...] Paul Hsieh exposition license [...] * The redistributor must fully attribute the content's authorship and make a good faith effort to cite the original location of the original content. This restriction is additional to the GPL. The result is GPL-incompatible and cannot be redistributed under either license. * The content may not be modified via excerpt or otherwise with the exception of additional citations such as described above without prior consent of Paul Hsieh. This restriction is additional to the GPL. The result is GPL-incompatible and cannot be redistributed under either license. * The content may not be subject to a change in license without prior consent of Paul Hsieh. This quite clearly is not compatible with the GPL: both licenses require that the work be distributed only under their terms, thus both cannot be simultaneously satisfied. Is this DFSG-free? Worse, I don't think the work can be legally redistributed at all. Any of the problems noted above in the text of the Paul Hsieh Exposition License make the combined work unredistributable, since one cannot satisfy both of GPL and the Paul Hsieh Exposition License simultaneously. Thanks very much Ben and Don. I'll contact Paul Hsieh to see if he'd be willing to re-license it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 22 May 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote: 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any solution to the distribution of a Debian system based on OpenSolaris. This is not the case, unfortunatly, and it really would be wise in the future to consult with people who are familiar with the arguments surrounding such licenses before expressing Debian's opinion to the FSF. The CDDL's clause 9 is very much not appropriate for works in main, and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the CDDL have never been accepted in main.[1] To underline, the following clauses in the CDDL are problematic: 9. MISCELLANEOUS [...] This License shall be governed by the law of the jurisdiction specified in a notice contained within the Original Software (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), excluding such jurisdiction's conflict-of-law provisions. Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts located in the jurisdiction and venue specified in a notice contained within the Original Software, with the losing party responsible for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. [...] You agree that You alone are responsible for compliance with the United States export administration regulations (and the export control laws and regulation of any other countries) when You use, distribute or otherwise make available any Covered Software. It's not appropriate for a Free Software license to require users of software to give up rights that they would normaly have in their own jurisdiction. I understand that argument, but I do think it requires a leap of logic (or at least some creative interpretation) to get from the DFSG to this position. While I can see why some people do not want CDDL-licensed software in main for the above reason, I do not think it is fair to call it the Debian position that this is the case; at least not yet. Counter-arguments: * The bit (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise) means you don't necessarily have to give up all your rights. There are parts of copyright law in most jurisdictions that give unalienable rights to users; those fall under the above provision, by definition. The net result of your first clause therefore may be, depending on circumstances, that users actually get _more_ rights than what they started out with if that provision wasn't there, because their own copyright law doesn't give them nearly as much rights as the copyright law in the country where the software was written would. * Your second quote is a non-issue. The same is true for GPL-licensed software; if not, then why did we have to consult two lawyers back when we moved crypto to main? And why do we still have such insane procedures today when some crypto-using software gets through NEW? (you don't see them because ftp-masters handle them, but they're still there). Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue you in a court that works by a set of rules that I'm actually comfortable with. You know, it makes fighting those who do not follow your license the way you intended them to quite a bit easier. -- Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Boost License
Michael Poole wrote: Various boost libraries are already in Debian under this license[1]. Why ask -legal to verify its DFSG freeness? [1]- http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/b/boost/boost_1.33.1-10/libboost-date-time1.33.1.copyright which mentions many libraries beyond Boost's date_time library Yes, yes -- how silly. I am running Kubuntu and have boost libraries installed. Ergo the Boost license is DFSG-compatible. I must check if I have rights to modify that wiki, and add the Boost license to the approved list. Shriramana Sharma. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue you in a court that works by a set of rules that I'm actually comfortable with. You know, it makes fighting those who do not follow your license the way you intended them to quite a bit easier. That's a strawman. The objection raised to choice-of-venue clauses is not what they specify to happen when the licensee has *infringed* the license, it's what they specify to happen when the licensee *hasn't* infringed the license but the copyright holder files a lawsuit against them anyway out of malice. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean, how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia, the largest collection of software (as Debian calls it) under the GFDL? Except, the main block, the only one which cannot be ignored with optimistic interpretation, has been specifically excluded from Wikipedia. Please read the part about invariant sections on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights -- in a quite convoluted way they say you may add invariant sections and cover text only if they're neither invariant when it's technically possible to change them, nor unremovable, nor placed on cover of any kind. Ie, you can't have them. THE DEBIAN / GFDL FIASCO A most lamentable tragedie of Incompatible Philosophies in three ackts Please. If that's not mindless flamebait, I don't know what is. And s/ackts/acts/g. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Le dimanche 03 juin 2007 à 00:33 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : That a poster to debian-legal doesn't think a license meets the DFSG isn't particularly useful information, and is even less so when that poster isn't a DD, a maintainer or someone in the n-m queue. You really can't refrain, can you? -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 04:51:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue you in a court that works by a set of rules that I'm actually comfortable with. You know, it makes fighting those who do not follow your license the way you intended them to quite a bit easier. That's a strawman. The objection raised to choice-of-venue clauses is not what they specify to happen when the licensee has *infringed* the license, it's what they specify to happen when the licensee *hasn't* infringed the license but the copyright holder files a lawsuit against them anyway out of malice. I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've infringed the license, it doesn't really matter if I'm doing that out of maliciousness or a genuine. And as far as the actual effects go, I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in your license: if you set foot in Australia, with an Australian judgement against you, there's a good chance of it being enforced; and if you don't, there seems to be a practical possibility of your extradition anyway, based on [0]. Simon Phipps' argument, presented at debconf last year, is (aiui) that the clause only comes into play when both parties are organisations that cross multiple jurisdictions anyway -- in which case they're both presumed to have a presence in the given jurisdiction anyway, and could reasonably be expected to be following its rules, afaics. [0] http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/05/06/1178390140855.html Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the license under 6.1, He could claim the license is terminated under 6.1, but presumably the Debian maintainer would dispute such a claim. and bring action in Berlin for copyright infringement; the maintainer and any other parties to the action (people to whom the work was distributed after notification of breech) would then have to defend themselves in Berlin instead of notifying the court that the venue was improper (or whatever the German equivalent is.) The court in Berlin would have to not throw the case out on their own accord (in spite of the difficulty in having your side of the case presented, and in spite of the jurisdictional issues, the questionability of the claim in the first place, and the difficulty in showing harm), rule against you in absentia (agreeing with the arguments presented), and could then only take action in so far you already operate in its sphere of influence, or in so far as it can convince your government to extradite you or enforce its rulings for them. Should someone be willing to do that, and a court is willing to go through all those steps with a choice of venue clause, what makes you think they'd not do so in the absence of one? On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such fails DFSG 1. You're not giving up any rights, you're gaining the right to modify and distribute the software under certain conditions, just as you are under the GPL. We don't give up rights under the GPL that we otherwise enjoy though; Some people do. Microsoft considers the right to enforce its properly obtained patents worth going to the trouble of distributing coupons instead of SuSE itself, eg. we only gain ones in specific circumstances. In the case of the CDDL, we lose rights even in the case where we're only using the work. What makes you think the latter is true? I don't endorse the claim that copyright licenses can take away usage rights if you're not making use of the ability to modify or distribute that they offer you. In some cases it may be enough to provide a simple notice like that to bind a user, but that's dependent on your jurisdiction as a user more than a choice of venue clause, and I can't see any reason to think it applies to the CDDL even so. You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something more than that to violate the DFSG. giving up something that you might value [or] otherwise demand compensation for applies equally well to cash money as it does to any other intangible which has value. A requirement to send an email to the licensor if you possibly can isn't cash money either, but it sure seems to be a fee to me. It's not a fee in the normal sense of the word, but it is a restriction in the sense that if you're not able to do it (and you may well not be able to), you're not able to make use of the priveleges you're offered in return. That's where the analogy to a fee comes in -- it stops some people from being able to participate. For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent rights stops Microsoft from being willing to distribute Linux. It's *possible* that it's still obnoxious enough that it's too much to ask, but so far I can't see any significant cost to choice of venue that makes it any worse than all the other weird and wacky things people put in free software licenses. The DFSG are a set of *guidelines*, if you can't explain violations in simple, understandable terms, they're not violations. This is my understanding as well; I'm only explaining the application to DFSG 1 to attempt to appease strict constructionists. The OSI lists are that way: :) I'm personally using feel as shorthand for my understanding of the legal situtation regarding this clause and its relation to the DFSG That's great, but *your understanding* isn't any more important than anyone else's. I'm not claiming that it is; my point is that my understanding is not *less* important than anyone else's. I've done what everyone should do to come to an understanding. I'm glad to see you write that; though I was referring more to Francesco's post and similar than yours. But even so, when you say things like I'm personally more concerned about licensing than the average developer and I [...] expect people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis with counter arguments, come to a complete understanding of the problem, and then make a determination you are saying your understanding is more important than other people's.
Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:38:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: On Saturday 02 June 2007 19:05:16 Ben Finney wrote: [...] I agree that the GPL is the best FSF license to be applied to any work of authorship, but the FSF don't agree -- and I believe they expressed this disagreement long before they started promoting other licenses designed for non-program works. Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the Preample: The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. Section 0. of the GNU GPL *v2* states, in part: | 0. This License applies to any program or other work [...] | ^ | The Program, below, refers to any such program or work [...] | ^^^ I think even the GNU GPL *v2* was designed with the applicability to non-program works in mind. It was certainly designed *primarily* for programs, but also in such a way to be applicable to any work of authorship. At least, that's my understanding after reading the license text so many times... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpwJE40BM8Eq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
On Sunday 03 June 2007 09:05:05 Francesco Poli wrote: On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:38:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the Preample: The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. Section 0. of the GNU GPL *v2* states, in part: | 0. This License applies to any program or other work [...] | ^ | The Program, below, refers to any such program or work [...] | ^^^ I think even the GNU GPL *v2* was designed with the applicability to non-program works in mind. It was certainly designed *primarily* for programs, but also in such a way to be applicable to any work of authorship. At least, that's my understanding after reading the license text so many times... True, but it does seem that that the [draft] GPLv3 features this a bit more prominently (first line in the preamble, more clear in the definitions, some of the non-source conveying options are less ambiguous now with non-program works, etc). Anyway, not that it particularly matters——GPLv2 in practice already works pretty well for almost all non-program works——it was mostly just an interesting observation. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Anthony Towns writes: I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've infringed the license, it doesn't really matter if I'm doing that out of maliciousness or a genuine. And as far as the actual effects go, I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in your license: if you set foot in Australia, with an Australian judgement against you, there's a good chance of it being enforced; and if you don't, there seems to be a practical possibility of your extradition anyway, based on [0]. Extradition is for criminal cases, not civil cases. I cannot imagine how a choice of venue clause would significantly either help or hurt a criminal defendant. As has been previously discussed on -legal -- several times, I might add -- there are a variety of reasons that the rest your argument is flawed. To summarize: Most of the expense of non-local defense litigation is in advance of any court judgment on the merits. The cost to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction is an order of magnitude (or more) less than litigating it through trial. It is harder to set aside a default judgment than to dismiss a complaint for improper venue. Even if the license provides for recovery of costs and attorneys' fees plus interest, a successful non-local defendant has to pay significant out-of-pocket expenses and will probably end up in the red on the whole case due to his time and money being tied up in the lawsuit rather than its normal use. Those are the costs of a choice-of-venue clause. The (apparently one and only) benefit is that it is cheaper for the licensor to sue people and/or the results of lawsuits are more predictable. Is that truly acceptable in a free software license? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the license under 6.1, [...] Should someone be willing to do that, and a court is willing to go through all those steps with a choice of venue clause, what makes you think they'd not do so in the absence of one? The difference is in the cost of defending against such an action; in the normal case you have the ability to make the entire claim go away by notifying the court that the venue is improper. In the case of a choice of venue clause, you first have to invalidate the choice of venue, which increases the cost. If you're going to ignore the court case, it doesn't matter to you, but if you ever plan on travelling to germany or doing business with people in germany (or live in some part of germany that isn't close enough to berlin to defend yourself there) it can be a significant cost. we only gain ones in specific circumstances. In the case of the CDDL, we lose rights even in the case where we're only using the work. What makes you think the latter is true? I don't endorse the claim that copyright licenses can take away usage rights if you're not making use of the ability to modify or distribute that they offer you. Unlike the GPL, the CDDL doesn't separate use from modification. Since use (or at least performance of a work) is a right that is reserved to the copyright holder, you need some level of permission to do so. But even so, when you say things like I'm personally more concerned about licensing than the average developer and I [...] expect people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis with counter arguments, come to a complete understanding of the problem, and then make a determination you are saying your understanding is more important than other people's. No, I'm saying that people who disagree should engage my analysis instead of remaining silent or discarding them with offhand comments. Holding people who agree with you to that standard might be a way to start? If I had time to do so, I'd consider it. Since I don't, I content myself with trying to make sure my messages approach this standard, setting an example instead. What else can we do? We take input, we examine it, we respond with our understanding of how the input meshes together. I don't believe we're capable of presenting absolute truth. Who is we in the above? For someone who's not a regular on -legal, it doesn't sound like it includes me. I'd like to believe it includes every rational being. In any event, the important thing (afaics) isn't to have a forum where regulars can post their understanding of issues, it's to help the people you're communicating with have a better appreciation for the complexities involved in their issue and how they might choose to approach them. That can mean pointing out possible drawbacks in existing licenses, explaining tradeoffs between licenses, or suggesting alternative ways of drafting licenses that avoid having to make some tradeoffs, but it doesn't mean making the tradeoffs for other people. Almost all this happens on -legal, actually. Some of it happens more frequently on other lists, since drafting licenses is not something that -legal does, but many of the contributors to -legal are involved in making sure that new versions of licences that are drafted are obviously DFSG Free. I've personally been involved in trying to resolve the GFDL issue, making sure that the GPLv3 is DFSG free, and have been working along with Simon and a few others to try to fix the RFC issue. [In the case of the CDDL, it's interesting to note that this very issue was supposedly going to be fixed or at least looked at in an upcomming revision of the CDDL.] No, punting to a GR is not a good solution -- it's slow to come to a resolution, it annoys developers who have to inform themselves about something they'd rather not worry about, and it ends up with -legal folks complaining that the resolution doesn't make sense. If it's the case that a signficant proportion of contributors to -legal and Debian Developers feel that an improper decision has been made, there's little else that can be done besides bringing it to a GR. What would make it more welcoming? A large part of the problem is the need to continuously point out counter arguments, [...] What makes it unwelcoming is the appearance of a consensus that doesn't brook argument, even when that consensus differs significantly from that of other sections of the free software (or open source) community. The problem is that it's very difficult to know if the consensus differens from the silent majority because the silent majority is nearly silent. there are some things that are widely agreed to be free, some things that are widely agreed to be
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: Debian does accept the CDDL as a free license (at least when the choice of venue is Berlin). Indeed; I wasn't aware of the CDDL ever being accepted in main; had I paid more attention to it, I would have brought this issue up sooner. It would be useful in the future if a statement of the policy of ftpmaster could be made when such a determiniation of acceptability of a work for main, especially when a work is reasonably controversial on -legal. Adopting pre-existing arguments for or against specific clauses of the license from -legal should be straight forward, and it'd be easy for those in agreement to sign on to the opinion of ftpmaster using their GPG keys. Unfortunatly, the start of this thread and a terse message to 350624-done is the only publicly available information that I'm aware of about the decision regarding this license. Don Armstrong -- There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their REAL earnings to the IRS. -- The B.O.F.H.. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: [...] Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In [...] Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such fails DFSG 1. That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as something involving the transfer of money. If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right (the right not to distribute any source) which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. Hey, if we're going to accept leaps of logic, I can do one too. Finally, by placing works under licenses with such clauses into non-free, we advise people that they should be examining the license more closely before deciding whether or not they should (or can) use the software. Everyone who really cares about anything should do that anyway. -- Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue you in a court that works by a set of rules that I'm actually comfortable with. You know, it makes fighting those who do not follow your license the way you intended them to quite a bit easier. That's a strawman. The objection raised to choice-of-venue clauses is not what they specify to happen when the licensee has *infringed* the license, it's what they specify to happen when the licensee *hasn't* infringed the license but the copyright holder files a lawsuit against them anyway out of malice. Thing is, in most (non-American) civilised jurisdictions, the copyright holder is likely to get their knees put seriously out of joint by a very upset judge. I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at the copyright holder's expense :-) Look at SCOG and how they got dealt with in Germany ... That said, I don't like venue clauses. In the UK, as a private person it is pretty much automatic that if I'm sued, I get to specify venue. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: [...] Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In [...] Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such fails DFSG 1. That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as something involving the transfer of money. If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right (the right not to distribute any source) which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. And what about societies without money? fee does NOT equal money. Your common knowledge is not my understanding ... The GPL is a *licence*. By definition it is a *one* *way* grant *from* the licensor. The choice of venue is a demand by the licensor for something back. Therefore any licence with a choice of venue clause cannot be a pure licence. Oh - and the GPL does NOT demand anything back, so there is no payment *to* *the* *licensor*. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as something involving the transfer of money. If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right (the right not to distribute any source) which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. And what about societies without money? fee does NOT equal money. Your common knowledge is not my understanding ... Okay, now I'm really curious. Exactly which societies without money are you talking about? -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:46:30 +0200 Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...] If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right (the right not to distribute any source) which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. This argument is flawed. You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and have no obligation to provide source. You're *not* giving up the right to distribute binaries without distributing the corresponding source, because, without a license, you would not have the right to distribute binaries in the first place (with or without source). By accepting the GPL, you instead gain the right to distribute binaries with source, and you simply do *not* gain the right to distribute binaries without source. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgptcx9dLpgAc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 03/06/07, Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean, how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia, the largest collection of software (as Debian calls it) under the GFDL? Please read the part about invariant sections on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights -- in a quite convoluted way they say you may add invariant sections and cover text only if they're neither invariant when it's technically possible to change them, nor unremovable, nor placed on cover of any kind. Ie, you can't have them. Yes, so how has the GFDL hurt Wikipedia? And how the hell are you going to justify adding an invariant section to Wikipedia since the breadth of its content is all of human knowledge and invariant sections can only deal with subject matter that is not related to the main subject of a GFDLed doc? I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. In the meantime, man gcc still says here that gcc has no manpage, contrary to Debian policy. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual. This in itself is why we do not have GFDLed manpages. Don Armstrong -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:18:56AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:46:30 +0200 Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...] If it isn't, then the GPL is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right (the right not to distribute any source) which you might otherwise have, which could be considered to be a fee. This argument is flawed. It is not. You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and have no obligation to provide source. You're *not* giving up the right to distribute binaries without distributing the corresponding source, because, without a license, you would not have the right to distribute binaries in the first place (with or without source). By accepting the GPL, you instead gain the right to distribute binaries with source, and you simply do *not* gain the right to distribute binaries without source. Similarly, by accepting the CDDL, you are not giving up the right to choose a venue in case you get sued over the software; instead, you are simply gaining the right to use, modify, and redistribute the software under a given set of rules (which simply does not include the right to choose a court in which to settle disagreements). That is what matters, and that is what makes the software free. Even if my argument would be flawed (which I don't think it is, but just in case), that wouldn't even matter. What matters is that DFSG#1 talks about a royalty or other fee--i.e. money--not giving up rights; and any interpretation of the text that says it does talk about giving up rights is incorrect to begin with. -- Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you get sued and convicted as a private person in a jurisdiction that is not yours, there are two possible outcomes: * You try to defend yourself, and might win or lose depending on the case. If you go to the jurisdiction where you are being sued, the end result might be that enforcement is likely. * You do nothing, and nothing happens I'm not sure what any of this has to do with choice of venue; the only thing choice of venue alters is your ability to stop the case in the initial phases by advertising that venue is improper in that jursidiction, not your ability to decide that ignoring German law is the appropriate tactic. On top of that, the licensor couldn't even sue me in Belgium, since then *I* could invoke the choice-of-venue clause to prevent that. They'd probably come to Belgium to get the German decision enforced, actually. They're fairly close, after all. Don Armstrong [Who has no idea if these sorts of clauses even work in Germany or Belgium] -- Three little words. (In decending order of importance.) I love you -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Anthony Towns writes: I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've infringed the license, it doesn't really matter if I'm doing that out of maliciousness or a genuine. And as far as the actual effects go, I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in your license: if you set foot in Australia, with an Australian judgement against you, there's a good chance of it being enforced; and if you don't, there seems to be a practical possibility of your extradition anyway, based on [0]. Extradition is for criminal cases, not civil cases. I cannot imagine how a choice of venue clause would significantly either help or hurt a criminal defendant. That makes it even better. If you get sued and convicted as a private person in a jurisdiction that is not yours, there are two possible outcomes: * You try to defend yourself, and might win or lose depending on the case. If you go to the jurisdiction where you are being sued, the end result might be that enforcement is likely. * You do nothing, and nothing happens You see, if a judge in the U.S. decides that I am guilty as charged based upon evidence brought before him, I couldn't care less. Belgium does not extradite its own citizens unless those have been convicted by Belgian judges and found guilty; so as long as I do not do anything which might be illegal by Belgian law, there's nothing to stop me from not following the license. Sure, that probably means I should be wary of going to the U.S. while convicted there, but perhaps I can live with that. And indeed, since extradition isn't for civil cases, they wouldn't even ask for extradition in the first place. On top of that, the licensor couldn't even sue me in Belgium, since then *I* could invoke the choice-of-venue clause to prevent that. Hadn't thought of that before, but I'm starting to like these clauses. -- Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual. So you're saying that the current gcc*doc* package in non-free that places the invariant sections in a separate manpage is violating the GFDL? Or is placing the invariant pages in a separate manpage not an extract of GFDL documentation? Seems to me that it *is* an extract and that supplying both gcc (1) and fsf-funding (7) adheres to the GFDL. Indeed, this almost the path that OpenBSD has followed too. There's no practical benefit from removing an insignifcantly small invariant section from a large document except for a desire to not distribute FSF propaganda. If you create a small excerpt from a large GFDL document, you can probably omit the invariant section per Fair Use policies. This isn't a real problem. The FSF isn't going to be enacting legal action against OpenBSD or all the other distros who created a gcc manpage from the info docs. Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual. So you're saying that the current gcc*doc* package in non-free that places the invariant sections in a separate manpage is violating the GFDL? Yes. It is my understanding that it is violating the letter of the GFDL. This isn't a real problem. The FSF isn't going to be enacting legal action against OpenBSD or all the other distros who created a gcc manpage from the info docs. I believe most of us agree on this point, which is why the status quo of a work present in non-free hasn't been seriously challenged. You'll note though, that we do not (and cannot) distribute gcc-4.1.1(7) seprately from gpl(7); there is a versioned dependency between those packages. Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users. The Developers as a whole decided that the problems with invariant sections and the GFDL were sufficient enough to exclude them from main. However, the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free. If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in its entirety. The choice is yours, really. Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:09:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you get sued and convicted as a private person in a jurisdiction that is not yours, there are two possible outcomes: * You try to defend yourself, and might win or lose depending on the case. If you go to the jurisdiction where you are being sued, the end result might be that enforcement is likely. * You do nothing, and nothing happens I'm not sure what any of this has to do with choice of venue; By itself, nothing. But in a lawsuit in the context of a license with a choice-of-venue clause, either you live in the jurisdiction that is claimed in the license (in which case not much changes wrt what would be the case if there were no choice-of-venue clause in the first place), or you do not (in which case the above is appropriate). the only thing choice of venue alters is your ability to stop the case in the initial phases by advertising that venue is improper in that jursidiction, not your ability to decide that ignoring German law is the appropriate tactic. What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your immediate concern is zero, for all practical matters; that means you can simply ignore it, and nothing Bad will happen. Therefore, I don't think it makes it anything even remotely representing non-freeness. If you are a company or other organization which is large enough that choice-of-venue clauses do matter, then you probably do have contacts with a lawyer in the appropriate jurisdiction whom you can ask to represent you, anyway. [...] [Who has no idea if these sorts of clauses even work in Germany or Belgium] Seen how the Belgian Government wrote the first license in /usr/share/doc/libbeid2/copyright (in particular section 6.3 of that license), I guess they do. -- Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Wouter Verhelst writes: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Anthony Towns writes: I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've infringed the license, it doesn't really matter if I'm doing that out of maliciousness or a genuine. And as far as the actual effects go, I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in your license: if you set foot in Australia, with an Australian judgement against you, there's a good chance of it being enforced; and if you don't, there seems to be a practical possibility of your extradition anyway, based on [0]. Extradition is for criminal cases, not civil cases. I cannot imagine how a choice of venue clause would significantly either help or hurt a criminal defendant. That makes it even better. If you get sued and convicted as a private person in a jurisdiction that is not yours, there are two possible outcomes: * You try to defend yourself, and might win or lose depending on the case. If you go to the jurisdiction where you are being sued, the end result might be that enforcement is likely. * You do nothing, and nothing happens Civil cases do not have convictions (or guilt), just as they do not have extradition. Civil cases have judgments and liability. (I assume this is a case of linguistic differences rather than legal ignorance.) I cannot speak to other systems, but your first case is wrong: Simply appearing in one US court to defend oneself against claims would not pass the minimum contacts test that is used to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists. You also oversimplified the second case to ignore the situation where a judgment in one jurisdiction is enforced in the defendant's own jurisdiction. This applies in particular to US courts due to regional divisions (namely, Federal circuits and state lines). Finally, you have omitted a third case: the defendant moves (probably successfully) to have the suit dismissed for improper venue. This has notable benefits for the defendant, including the chance to have reasonable costs awarded -- and that chance goes up, with respect to the first action, if it is re-filed elsewhere later. You see, if a judge in the U.S. decides that I am guilty as charged based upon evidence brought before him, I couldn't care less. Belgium does not extradite its own citizens unless those have been convicted by Belgian judges and found guilty; so as long as I do not do anything which might be illegal by Belgian law, there's nothing to stop me from not following the license. Sure, that probably means I should be wary of going to the U.S. while convicted there, but perhaps I can live with that. And indeed, since extradition isn't for civil cases, they wouldn't even ask for extradition in the first place. On top of that, the licensor couldn't even sue me in Belgium, since then *I* could invoke the choice-of-venue clause to prevent that. Hadn't thought of that before, but I'm starting to like these clauses. Good for you. I would not ask you to avoid these clauses for yourself. However, they are considerably less appealing to those who do not have the same legal system or tolerance of avoiding arbitrary countries. As I understand them, DFSG conformance and freedoms are not a function of particular people's convenience. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 02:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your immediate concern is zero, for all practical matters; that means you can simply ignore it, and nothing Bad will happen. Therefore, I don't think it makes it anything even remotely representing non-freeness. This is not true. There is such a thing as comity, in which those who have won judgments in one court can get another court to recognize the judgment and compel payment. This happens in international contexts, even without a treaty. For example, if a French court issues a judgment against a US citizen, a US court will at least seriously consider giving effect to the judgment. And this happens *without* anything like retrying the case. In federal states, such as the US, this is particularly serious, because the federal constitution *compels* states to give effect to each other's court judgments. Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and have no obligation to provide source. You're *not* giving up the right to distribute binaries without distributing the corresponding source, because, without a license, you would not have the right to distribute binaries in the first place (with or without source). By accepting the GPL, you instead gain the right to distribute binaries with source, and you simply do *not* gain the right to distribute binaries without source. Similarly, by accepting the CDDL, you are not giving up the right to choose a venue in case you get sued over the software; instead, you are simply gaining the right to use, modify, and redistribute the software under a given set of rules (which simply does not include the right to choose a court in which to settle disagreements). That is what matters, and that is what makes the software free. Even if my argument would be flawed (which I don't think it is, but just in case), that wouldn't even matter. What matters is that DFSG#1 talks about a royalty or other fee--i.e. money--not giving up rights; and any interpretation of the text that says it does talk about giving up rights is incorrect to begin with. I am not a specialist, but in France, private use of a work cannot be denied (as well as private copy, in some measure). Whether this applies only to countries following author rights doctrine instead of copyrights, I let it to someone more knowledgeable in this field. Of course, private means private (not the familial group). -- JCD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
