mined copyright with no copyright
Hi all, I intended to do a qa upload to fix some bugs on the package mined [0] which is orphaned[1], and i got a lintian warning about the file debian/copyright where it has no copyright holder, when i asked to the upstream maintainer of this issue he answered me this [2] also i asked in comp.os.minix [3] about mined and got no answer so far btw, i've seen lots of packages [4] with this lintian warning too, and doesn't seem to be a big problem.. what should i do in this case? [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=mined;dist=unstable [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=382750 [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2008/03/msg00062.html [3] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/browse_thread/thread/39c779aefa96e947/41ffe7e1ada839ec#41ffe7e1ada839ec [4] http://lintian.debian.org/reports/tags/copyright-without-copyright-notice.html Regards, Mauro Lizaur -- JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK Version: 3.12 GCM/O d-dpu$ s-:- a--a+++$ C+++ LU P+ L++ E W+++ N !o K w O !M !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5– X R tv++ b- DI D++ G+ e h!h-- rr+++ y+ END GEEK CODE BLOCK
Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)
Giancarlo Niccolai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clarifications
and permissions. [...]
Summary: I believe that any interpreter under this Falcon P.L. licence
will contaminate other software and so fail DFSG 9. Also, I think the
licence contains lawyerbombs (things relying on court rulings which
haven't been stated, maybe because they haven't occurred yet).
In general, I'm disappointed to see this licence proliferation.
I'm only going to look at differences with the Apache licence 2.0.
Terms marked [-...] are in Apache, terms marked {+...} are in Falcon.
I've tried to ignore the extensive punctuation and heading changes.
(Command for rc shell:
wdiff {curl -s http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt} {curl -s
'http://www.falconpl.org/?page_id=license' | dexml}
)
First changes are in the definitions (tightly?). I'm very
uncomfortable with these, as they affect the whole licence.
making modifications, including but not limited
to software source [-code, documentation ]
[-source,] {+code} and [-configuration files. ]
{+example code.}
This change seems OK - documentation is software here - but what
does this mean for configuration files?
New definitions:-
{+Embedding Works shall mean any work,}
{+whether in Source or Object form, that links}
{+(or binds by name) to the interface of the}
{+Work and Derivative Works.} {+Scripts shall mean}
{+any work, weather in Source or Object form,}
{+that is expressed through the grammar rules which}
{+are known by the Work.} {+Users shall}
{+mean any person that uses, directly or indirectly,}
{+all or any of the Work, the Derivative Works,}
{+the Embedding Works or the Scripts.}
Claiming any copyright over Scripts gives me the heebie-jeebies.
More importantly, that seems like an obvious failure of DFSG 9 by
contaminating other software.
Also, surely Users is a court-defined term? What is the effect of
trying to override that here?
Finally, it contains a homophone error (weather instead of whether).
4(d) is very hard to read in wdiff. It appears to be a total
rewrite. Falcon version:-
# If the Source form of Scripts is not distributed nor made available
by any mean to the Users, a prominent notice about the fact that the
Scripts have been written in the Language must be presented in a place
which the Users are exposed to.
A new obnoxious advertising clause. Probably won't break DFSG, but I
don't like it for practical reasons.
On the plus side, we lose the NOTICE's potential for DFSG-busting from
the Apache 2.0 licence.
Other than that, it differs from Apache 2.0 in missing the How to
Apply appendix, which isn't serious, but seems a bit user-unfriendly.
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: ITP:Bug#460591 - Falcon P.L. license
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 19 March 2008 03:10:07 pm Francesco Poli wrote: I don't think that copyright laws give you the right to control distribution of Scripts, that is to say, works written in your programming language. [...] There's even the question of how someone goes about learning the language... presumably by example (that's how I've learned most other languages). Can I create a work that is not derivative of those examples and thus under the preview of copyright law? This would have made a fun topic to write about in law school :) Sure. I suspect there's quite a bit of case law about it, including some generated by the loglan/lojban disputes, where 'JCB claimed copyright to the language (any use of Loglan had to be approved by him)' Source: http://arj.nvg.org/lojban/why-i-like.html I'm suspicious of any language where the definer is the first implementer and hasn't renounced all claim to works in that language. They look like lawyerbombs to me because I don't know any better. Is that a good thing to have when trying to promote your new language? Regards, -- 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: mined copyright with no copyright
Hi, Am Di 25 Mär 2008 03:07:24 CET schrieb Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I intended to do a qa upload to fix some bugs on the package mined [0] which is orphaned[1], and i got a lintian warning about the file debian/copyright where it has no copyright holder, when i asked to the upstream maintainer of this issue he answered me this [2] also i asked in comp.os.minix [3] about mined and got no answer so far btw, i've seen lots of packages [4] with this lintian warning too, and doesn't seem to be a big problem.. The upstream maintainer says: originally (i.e. ~ 20 years ago), we took mined from the Minix operating system which was a free academic project, and the mined.doc file did not mention a copyright. So no, I do not think the original author could claim a copyright. Also he is not reachable on the net, I had already tried that a few years ago. If there is no specific license for mined, but it is taken from Minix, the Minix copyright notice will apply. Last time I had my hands on it (early 90ies) Minix was being licensed commercially, for research and educational purposes only, see the license at http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/ld/MINIX-README.html If Minix had been a free project (in the Debian sense), Linux wouldn't have been necessary... Minix3 seems to have a more free license, see http://www.minix3.org/license.html But that wasn't available 20 years ago, it looks like the mined fork was made from commercial software. Michael Below -- Michael Below Rechtsanwalt www.judiz.de
Re: mined copyright with no copyright
Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I intended to do a qa upload to fix some bugs on the package mined [0] which is orphaned[1], and i got a lintian warning about the file debian/copyright where it has no copyright holder, Rather, that the copyright holder is not identified. when i asked to the upstream maintainer of this issue he answered me this [2] The reply you got from Thomas Wolff says, in part: Hello Mauro, originally (i.e. ~ 20 years ago), we took mined from the Minix operating system which was a free academic project, and the mined.doc file did not mention a copyright. So no, I do not think the original author could claim a copyright. Also he is not reachable on the net, I had already tried that a few years ago. Jurisdictions that are signatories to the Berne copyright convention make copyright *automatic* in all works that qualify for copyright at all. So the author doesn't need to claim a copyright in a work, nor even be identified at all, for copyright to apply to that work and restrict the actions of every recipient. Such is the madness of automatic all-rights-reserved copyright by default. The authors of the 'mined' package need to have had license from the Minix copyright holders to derive, modify, redistribute, and/or sublicense the work, if they did any of those things, or any other act reserved by copyright law. If they did get specific license from the Minix copyright holder, that would be vital to know in this case. Judging by the above information, they never got specific license for these actions. It seems, then, that the 'mined' package is either not redistributable at all (if it was derived and redistributed in breach of copyright), or is redistributable only under the terms of whatever the license terms were of Minix ~ 20 years ago. Those terms were, IIRC, not DFSG-free, since among other restrictions they limited the field of endeavour for use of the work. what should i do in this case? You've already pursued this for quite a way along the needlessly twisting and overgrown paths that copyright regimes engender. Thanks for your efforts. Unless the copyright lineage can be properly traced, I don't see a lot of hope to get this package as free software. -- \ People's Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: Stop the Laurasian | `\ Separatist Movement! -- wiredog, http://kuro5hin.org/ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mined copyright with no copyright
Hi All, I got a reply to the post on comp.os.minix about mined: --- Jan-Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I remember Michiel writing it. In the Netherlands you don't need to claim copyright, it comes from writing it. However in this case, Andy payed (100 guilders if I remember correctly) for mined, so that would make it a work for hire. Both the Dutch and the US law (and probably most also the laws in other countries) would put the Copyright with Andy. E-mail him to make sure: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most probably mined is FreeBSD style licensed, but I am not sure. Regards. --- Well, that's all for now. I'll send an email to Andy Tanenbaum to see if i can get an answer about this package. Regards, Mauro -- JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK Version: 3.12 GCM/O d-dpu$ s-:- a--a+++$ C+++ LU P+ L++ E W+++ N !o K w O !M !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5– X R tv++ b- DI D++ G+ e h!h-- rr+++ y+ END GEEK CODE BLOCK
Re: mined copyright with no copyright
Mauro Lizaur wrote: I remember Michiel writing it. In the Netherlands you don't need to claim copyright, it comes from writing it. However in this case, Andy payed (100 guilders if I remember correctly) for mined, so that would make it a work for hire. Please note that work for hire in Dutch copyright law only applies when the work is made by an employer. Merely paying someone to write software doesn't mean you own the copyright on the software. There has to be an actual employment contract between you and the writer. Both the Dutch and the US law (and probably most also the laws in other countries) would put the Copyright with Andy. Ehm, no. Unless the contract between Tanenbaum and the writer transfers copyright to Tanenbaum. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ITP:Bug#460591 - Falcon P.L. license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Walter Landry wrote: Giancarlo Niccolai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In example, I can release Falcon as a Debian package under GPL, and let users pick FPLL if they wish. That would be perfect. Many other programs in Debian are dual-licensed in that manner. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Very well, let's go for that then. How that can be accomplished? -- where can I look for samples, and what do I need write? Thanks, Giancarlo Niccolai. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH6UOj5nwsoBIDC4YRAlfnAJ4vMaFGGoPlJ/efFngYiQ2rJoFKwACeM0hI HQgOb7FEAi8c0HtCERWuX2E= =7K2e -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ITP:Bug#460591 - Falcon P.L. license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray wrote: Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 19 March 2008 03:10:07 pm Francesco Poli wrote: I don't think that copyright laws give you the right to control distribution of Scripts, that is to say, works written in your programming language. [...] There's even the question of how someone goes about learning the language... presumably by example (that's how I've learned most other languages). Can I create a work that is not derivative of those examples and thus under the preview of copyright law? This would have made a fun topic to write about in law school :) Sure. I suspect there's quite a bit of case law about it, including some generated by the loglan/lojban disputes, where 'JCB claimed copyright to the language (any use of Loglan had to be approved by him)' Source: http://arj.nvg.org/lojban/why-i-like.html I'm suspicious of any language where the definer is the first implementer and hasn't renounced all claim to works in that language. They look like lawyerbombs to me because I don't know any better. Is that a good thing to have when trying to promote your new language? Regards, The idea I tried to follow is exactly that to free the language definition from any possible current and future claim (i.e. through non-patentability). Bests, Giancarlo Niccolai. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH6UQn5nwsoBIDC4YRAjUzAJ44bYMgNZt/Mir8cYfP12Vb4XxXXwCgmK2L dmbWqWq3/daujGrXpoDdreQ= =wNKl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#460591: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray wrote: Giancarlo Niccolai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clarifications and permissions. [...] Summary: I believe that any interpreter under this Falcon P.L. licence will contaminate other software and so fail DFSG 9. About this, I would like to fix this if it's so, but in the rest of your review i can't trace what element of the license would break the DSFG and which point of DSFG would be broken. Also, I think the licence contains lawyerbombs (things relying on court rulings which haven't been stated, maybe because they haven't occurred yet). About this, there's nothing I (or anyone) can do now, except get a legal advice as I am doing. In general, I'm disappointed to see this licence proliferation. I am too. There isn't any single open source mainstream programming language or even compiler I know, including clisp, gcc, PHP, python, swi-prolog, ruby, harbour and xharbour (little known clipper clones OS projects I worked in), that isn't distributed under either a propetary non-reapplicable license or under a commonly known license with exceptions. IMHO, exceptions are much worse than license proliferation, as they modify a lawfully certified text and unbalance it, and their effect isn't always fully understandable by the time the exceptions are written. The only language that doesn't do so that I am aware of is PERL, which is distributed with double licensing, pure GPL and Artistic, both without exceptions. All this license proliferation in this area seems to mean that there isn't a well known certified license that covers even the *basic* needs of v.m. based languages (nor the needs of libraries of compiled-linked languages). Among the ready made solutions, the one that was attracting me the most was swi-prolog's but still swi prolog was not made to be embedded and there isn't any statement about using swi-prolog as an engine for 3d-party programs, which anyone would agree that is a bit more and different than what they stated originally with the term /if you link this library with other files, compiled with a Free Software compiler, to produce an executable. /Also, this would have caused Falcon to be a bit incompatible with embedding applications made with Visual Studio, and this is definitely not acceptable. It's because I am absolutely disappointed with license proliferation that I tried to write one that was covering exactly the needs of this application category, and decided to make it open, that is, not private or special for my language. Nevertheless, you'll admit that starting a review with such a sentence does not suggest a constructive critic attitude towards the object of the review... // Claiming any copyright over Scripts gives me the heebie-jeebies. More importantly, that seems like an obvious failure of DFSG 9 by contaminating other software. To me too. In fact, the FPLL doesn't claim any copyright on scripts. It just *defines* them to state they are *free* from possible copyright claims ( ... each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare ...) This mean, no one will mess with your scripts, they copyright to you. I don't know nor care if this is automatic, or already so. I want it to be clear and legally stated. Anyhow, let's suppose there is another software not distributed under FPLL that says the thing you produce with it or that you use to make it work are subject to copyright restrictions. There isn't any single article of the DFSG which would contrast with that, as not a single other software would be affected by that. As long as the openness and freedom of the software is granted, any software may extend copyright on any functional component it produces or processes, as i.e. Apache2 license does with configuration files, and this alone won't infring DFSG. More; Apache2 license states the sentence including but not limited to In legalese, this means hey, and also everything else, if we forgot to say it here. Following your reasoning, this would be quite a massive breaking of DFSG, but it is not. Said this, if you or anyone here or in future points out the article of DFSG that is threatened by FPLL, I will immediately make the offending part to conform. I *WANT* FPLL to stick with our community principles, which are quite well drawn by both OSI statement and DFSG. Also, surely Users is a court-defined term? What is the effect of trying to override that here? If there is any problem, let's change it. To my best knowledge, there wasn't any problem in using the term Users in a legal statement at the time I wrote FPLL. Finally, it contains a homophone error (weather instead of whether). Ops... thanks for pointing it out. Will be fixed. 4(d) is very hard to read in wdiff. It appears to be a total rewrite. Falcon version:- # If
Re: ITP:Bug#460591 - Falcon P.L. license
Giancarlo Niccolai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter Landry wrote: Giancarlo Niccolai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In example, I can release Falcon as a Debian package under GPL, and let users pick FPLL if they wish. That would be perfect. Many other programs in Debian are dual-licensed in that manner. Very well, let's go for that then. How that can be accomplished? -- where can I look for samples, and what do I need write? Firefox is one example. In every file, you can write something like * The contents of this file are subject to the Falcon Programming * Language License 1.0 (the FPLL); you may not use this file * except in compliance with the FPLL. You may obtain a copy of the * FPLL at http://www.falconpl.org/?page_id=license * * Software distributed under the FPLL is distributed on an AS IS basis, * WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the FPLL * for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the * FPLL. * * Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the * terms of the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the * GPL), in which case the provisions of the GPL are applicable * instead of those above. If you wish to allow use of your version of * this file only under the terms of the GPL, and not to allow others * to use your version of this file under the terms of the FPLL, * indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and replace * them with the notice and other provisions required by the GPL. If * you do not delete the provisions above, a recipient may use your * version of this file under the terms of either the FPLL or the GPL. It would also be nice to put a notice at the top level (e.g. in a README) that states that the same thing. Something like Copyright 1989-2001, Giancarlo Niccolai All rights reserved. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the Falcon Public Language License which comes with Falcon, or b) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. Also include a copy of the FPLL and the GPL with the code. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
