Re: license issuse in qterm
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:10:34 + John Halton wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008 8:52 AM, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol > > > description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other > > > than "ssh" or "Secure Shell". > > > > This may be a problem. However, to me it seems this just clarifies how > > he thinks about the use of his trademarks. They're probably not > > registered, but they still have some protection (assuming he is the > > right person to claim them). If he wants to use these names as > > trademarks, AFAIK he is allowed to. > > I agree. The restriction relates to (probably unregistered) trade > marks rather than copyright. It may be inconvenient in some > circumstances, and could be expressed more clearly, but it's not > non-free. IMO, the problem was not non-freeness, but GPL-compatibility. This is a name-change restriction, phrased as if it were a condition for getting copyright-related permissions (because it's placed directly under the copyright notice, inside what looks very much like a copyright permission notice), even though it's related to unregistered trademarks. Is such a restriction compatible with the GNU GPL? As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpPeR6NQh1yV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Design Science License (in freevo)
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:18:00PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > hi d-legal, > > I am taking care of the (forthcoming) freevo packages. > > Some artwork is covered by the attached Design Science License. > > Is it fine to include that stuff in the package and upload? > (I would say yes, but you may have a more informed opinion). Looks fine to me. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Design Science License (in freevo)
hi d-legal,
I am taking care of the (forthcoming) freevo packages.
Some artwork is covered by the attached Design Science License.
Is it fine to include that stuff in the package and upload?
(I would say yes, but you may have a more informed opinion).
a.
DESIGN SCIENCE LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
Copyright © 1999-2001 Michael Stutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verbatim copying of this document is permitted, in any medium.
0. PREAMBLE.
Copyright law gives certain exclusive rights to the author of a work,
including the rights to copy, modify and distribute the work (the
"reproductive," "adaptative," and "distribution" rights).
The idea of "copyleft" is to willfully revoke the exclusivity of those
rights under certain terms and conditions, so that anyone can copy and
distribute the work or properly attributed derivative works, while all
copies remain under the same terms and conditions as the original.
The intent of this license is to be a general "copyleft" that can be
applied to any kind of work that has protection under copyright. This
license states those certain conditions under which a work published
under its terms may be copied, distributed, and modified.
Whereas "design science" is a strategy for the development of
artifacts as a way to reform the environment (not people) and
subsequently improve the universal standard of living, this Design
Science License was written and deployed as a strategy for promoting
the progress of science and art through reform of the environment.
1. DEFINITIONS.
"License" shall mean this Design Science License. The License applies
to any work which contains a notice placed by the work's copyright
holder stating that it is published under the terms of this Design
Science License.
"Work" shall mean such an aforementioned work. The License also
applies to the output of the Work, only if said output constitutes a
"derivative work" of the licensed Work as defined by copyright law.
"Object Form" shall mean an executable or performable form of the
Work, being an embodiment of the Work in some tangible medium.
"Source Data" shall mean the origin of the Object Form, being the
entire, machine-readable, preferred form of the Work for copying and
for human modification (usually the language, encoding or format in
which composed or recorded by the Author); plus any accompanying
files, scripts or other data necessary for installation, configuration
or compilation of the Work.
(Examples of "Source Data" include, but are not limited to, the
following: if the Work is an image file composed and edited in PNG
format, then the original PNG source file is the Source Data; if the
Work is an MPEG 1.0 layer 3 digital audio recording made from a WAV
format audio file recording of an analog source, then the original WAV
file is the Source Data; if the Work was composed as an unformatted
plaintext file, then that file is the Source Data; if the Work was
composed in LaTeX, the LaTeX file(s) and any image files and/or custom
macros necessary for compilation constitute the Source Data.)
"Author" shall mean the copyright holder(s) of the Work.
The individual licensees are referred to as "you."
2. RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT.
The Work is copyrighted by the Author. All rights to the Work are
reserved by the Author, except as specifically described below. This
License describes the terms and conditions under which the Author
permits you to copy, distribute and modify copies of the Work.
In addition, you may refer to the Work, talk about it, and (as
dictated by "fair use") quote from it, just as you would any
copyrighted material under copyright law.
Your right to operate, perform, read or otherwise interpret and/or
execute the Work is unrestricted; however, you do so at your own risk,
because the Work comes WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY -- see Section 7 ("NO
WARRANTY") below.
3. COPYING AND DISTRIBUTION.
Permission is granted to distribute, publish or otherwise present
verbatim copies of the entire Source Data of the Work, in any medium,
provided that full copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty, where
applicable, is conspicuously published on all copies, and a copy of
this License is distributed along with the Work.
Permission is granted to distribute, publish or otherwise present
copies of the Object Form of the Work, in any medium, under the terms
for distribution of Source Data above and also provided that one of
the following additional conditions are met:
(a) The Source Data is included in the same distribution, distributed
under the terms of this License; or
(b) A written offer is included with the distribution, valid for at
least three years or for as long as the distribution is in print
(whichever is longer), with a publicly-accessible address (such as a
URL on the Internet) where, for a charge not greater than
transportation and media costs, anyone may receive a copy of the
Source Data of the Work distributed according to the section above; or
Re: license issuse in qterm
On Jan 10, 2008 8:52 AM, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol > > description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other > > than "ssh" or "Secure Shell". > > This may be a problem. However, to me it seems this just clarifies how > he thinks about the use of his trademarks. They're probably not > registered, but they still have some protection (assuming he is the > right person to claim them). If he wants to use these names as > trademarks, AFAIK he is allowed to. I agree. The restriction relates to (probably unregistered) trade marks rather than copyright. It may be inconvenient in some circumstances, and could be expressed more clearly, but it's not non-free. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license issuse in qterm
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 03:56:56PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: > I am the maintainer of qterm and I am checking the license issue in qterm. > > qterm is release under GPL-2+ as a whole, and the source files are > released under GPL-2+, LGPL-2.1+, BSD-2 and others. > > qterm/ssh/getput.h is released under following license[1]. And I don't > know whether it's OK to distribute it as GPL-2+, or whether it fulfill > DFSG, thanks. As Francesco wrote, this seems to be fine as far as the DFSG is concerned. About the GPL: > As far as I am concerned, the code I have written for this > software can be used freely for any purpose. > Any derived versions of this software must be clearly marked as > such, This is fine, the GPL requires it itself, so that should not make it incompatible. > and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol > description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other > than "ssh" or "Secure Shell". This may be a problem. However, to me it seems this just clarifies how he thinks about the use of his trademarks. They're probably not registered, but they still have some protection (assuming he is the right person to claim them). If he wants to use these names as trademarks, AFAIK he is allowed to. Looking at it that way, this statement really gives two licenses: one for the software, which is almost a disclaimer of copyright, and one for the trademarks, which has restrictions. AFAIK the GPL doesn't have a problem with this (that is, if a company puts its trademarked logo in GPL'd software, the GPL doesn't force the company to license the trademark to anyone). However, IANAL and I'm not at all sure if this is a proper way to look at things. I'd appreciate input from the list on it. Thanks, Bas Ps: please CC me on replies. -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: licensing of XMPP specifications
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd > > lose that in ASCII) > > Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of > "conspicuous" as required under U.S. UCC, I don't know. It's better, indeed. The US UCC conspicuous test s2-103.1.b is essentially Conspicuous terms include the following: (i) for a person: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language; and Heading in capitals. Not the whole damn thing. And setting it off by symbols is also fine. Actually, I don't see how putting the whole thing in capitals satisfies (B), so I guess that relies on the court judgement quoted. That judgement gives some examples of what that court will regard as acceptable - it does not say those are the only ways to do it. Also, you've been warned now that it will be less conspicuous, there are any number of references available about the difficulty of reading long SHOUTs, and the FSF's experts concluded there was no good reason for it. It's not like anyone involved in this thread can plead it's the best way they knew to be conspicuous any more. Hope that encourages a readable warranty, -- 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]
