Re: distributing precompiled binaries
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: The PDF needs to come with sources to build the corresponding PDF *using only free software in Debian*, or it's not acceptable for Debian. The same needs to be true of any binary in Debian, AIUI. The DFSG does not say this. Source is only mandatory for programs under the DFSG as written. That's taking the example from the explanation to be the complete requirement. Also, a PDF is a program for a certain type of interpreter. The Source missing entry in the REJECT-FAQ is Your packages contains files that need source but do not have it. These include PDF and PS files in the documentation. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html In the remuco package, the jar's definitely a program anyway. 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Packaging cluedome - copyright problems?
Tristan Greaves tris...@extricate.org wrote: I'm taking a look at packaging the game Cluedome: http://www.cluedome.com/ I'm wondering if there are any copyright concerns. The game advertises itself as a clone, and the source ships with an example game rules rule and image -- which match that of the board came Clue/Cluedo. Thanks for considering packaging Cluedome. It appears to be under GPL-2+, so on the face of it, there's no copyright concerns. I had a quick look at the source and didn't spot the game rules rule and image - which files are they? Do they actually match that of Cluedo, or could they be clean expressions of the ideas behind it? Anyone know whether that's sufficient? Finally, while not justifying anything, I note that there have been other more blatent unlicensed copies of Cluedo, it is itself derived from Ludo and reportedly both the original game and computer game are not currently in production, so I doubt that its makers would take a hard line against a similar computer game distributed for free. 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Packaging cluedome - copyright problems?
MJ Ray wrote: Tristan Greaves tris...@extricate.org wrote: I'm taking a look at packaging the game Cluedome: http://www.cluedome.com/ I'm wondering if there are any copyright concerns. The game advertises itself as a clone, and the source ships with an example game rules rule and image -- which match that of the board came Clue/Cluedo. Thanks for considering packaging Cluedome. It appears to be under GPL-2+, so on the face of it, there's no copyright concerns. I had a quick look at the source and didn't spot the game rules rule and image - which files are they? Do they actually match that of Cluedo, or could they be clean expressions of the ideas behind it? Anyone know whether that's sufficient? They are the two files in the data/ directory of the source tarball. One distinctly has the same character names, the other is a representation of the game board. This isn't picture-perfect of the commercial Cluedo game, but the grid, room positions and names are the same... Thanks for taking the time to look at this! Kind regards, Tris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. Could you please elaborate on this? I cannot find any requirement to identify the use of the library in Section 1 of the GNU LGPL v2.1. Disclaimer: I am tired and I could therefore fail to see what is just in front of my eyes [1] ... [1] hey! we could make an acronym out of this, couldn't we? ;-) -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpz9t25cGg7L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Judgement about the EUPL
Dear debian-legal, was the EUPL[1] previously reviewed already? Is there something in it that concerns acceptability and GPL compatibility (which was explictly intended) like choice of venue? Kind regards, Philipp Kern [1] http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl/ -- PDF-only as it looks but well. -- .''`. Philipp KernDebian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Release Assistant `. `' xmpp:p...@0x539.de Stable Release Manager `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
EUPL v1.1 full text: European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1 Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007 Preamble The attached European Union Public Licence (EUPL) has been elaborated in the framework of IDABC, a European Community programme, with the aim to promote Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to public Administrations, Business and Citizens. IDABC continues and deepens the previous IDA (Interchange of data between Administrations) programme. Software applications, such as CIRCA, a groupware for sharing documents within closed user groups, IPM, a tool helping administrations to close the gap between them and their stakeholders by providing a powerful and yet easy to use tool for direct consultation through the Internet, or eLink, a tool comprising the identification of remote services and the provision of reliable and secure messaging services over a network infrastructure, have been developed within the framework of the IDA or IDABC programmes. The European Community, on the basis of the contracts that permitted the development of such software, is owner of all Intellectual Property Rights and consequently of the source code and executables. Such IDA or IDABC developed tools are used by public administrations outside the European Institutions, under a licence delivered by the European Commission, which is the Institution acting on behalf of the European Community since the copyright for those tools belongs to the European Community. For some time, interest has increased in the publication of the software source code under a licence that would not limit access and modifications to the source code. The original EUPL Licence was established for such software, as corresponding to the IDABC objectives. The Licence is written in general terms and could therefore be used for derivative works, for other works and by other licensors. The utility of this Licence is to reinforce legal interoperability by adopting a common framework for pooling public sector software. This preamble is not a part of the EUPL Licence. Licence This European Union Public Licence (the EUPL) applies to the Work or Software (as defined below) which is provided under the terms of this Licence. Any use of the Work, other than as authorised under this Licence is prohibited (to the extent such use is covered by a right of the copyright holder of the Work). The Original Work is provided under the terms of this Licence when the Licensor (as defined below) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Original Work: Licensed under the EUPL V.1.1 or has expressed by any other mean his willingness to license under the EUPL. 1. Definitions In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning: o The Licence: this Licence. o The Original Work or the Software: the software distributed and/or communicated by the Licensor under this Licence, available as Source Code and also as Executable Code as the case may be. o Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a work as a Derivative Work; this extent is determined by copyright law applicable in the country mentioned in Article 15. o The Work: the Original Work and/or its Derivative Works. o The Source Code: the human-readable form of the Work which is the most convenient for people to study and modify. o The Executable Code: any code which has generally been compiled and which is meant to be interpreted by a computer as a program. o The Licensor: the natural or legal person that distributes and/or communicates the Work under the Licence. o Contributor(s): any natural or legal person who modifies the Work under the Licence, or otherwise contributes to the creation of a Derivative Work. o The Licensee or You: any natural or legal person who makes any usage of the Software under the terms of the Licence. o Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person. 2. Scope of the rights granted by the Licence The Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non- exclusive, sub-licensable
GFDL 1.1 or later
Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? Stay with 1.1 or later. Basically, unless YOU have the right to RElicence, you can't change the licence. And I doubt you have that right. The licensor has given you the right to use it under a later licence. But unless they gave you the right to CHANGE the licence (which I doubt) then you don't have the right to take 1.1 away. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Creative Commons CC0
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:51:31 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: [...] The hope is that there would be few enough CC licenses that most people would know the basic terms well enough that they never really need to look them up, but people do need internet access to look them up the first time, as well as if they ever have a detailed question that you require scrutenizing the Legal Code. Few enough CC licenses? Really? 12 CC-v1.0 licenses 6 CC-v2.0 licenses 6 CC-v2.5 licenses 6 CC-v3.0 licenses 3 CC-re-branded licenses [1][2][3] 1 public domain dedication 1 CC0 declaration Without counting the incredible number of jurisdiction-specific variants of the above mentioned licenses (some of which include permissions or restrictions worded in such a way to differ in meaning from the corresponding jurisdiction-neutral variant). Are you sure there's a hope that CC licenses could be few enough?!? I am personally under the impression that Creative Commons has been a license proliferation festival since the beginning of the their activity... :-( [1] http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl [2] http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BSD/ -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpmShQbfX0dt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: issues with the AGPL
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:27:42 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote: [...] 0) Conflict with the The Free Software Definition: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The AGPL is in direct conflicts with the two paragraphs below: I don't think the AGPLv3 actually is in conflict with what the FSF *now* states among their explanations and clarifications of the FSD. Included in the paragraphs you quoted, there's the following sentence: [...] Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. [...] Let's look better, though: has this sentence always been in the explanations of the FSD? The answer is: no, it hasn't. It seems [1] that this sentence was added on June 19th, 2005. No surprise: the FSF was preparing the propaganda to make us think that the AGPLv3 is an acceptable license for Free Software... by adjusting the interpretation of the Free Software Definition! For the record, I personally think that the GNU AfferoGPL v3 does *not* meet the DFSG: my analysis [2] was sent to this list long ago. [1] http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=wwwr1=1.38r2=1.39 [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpKX7CnZnsgd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:57:49 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] I found gnapplet with sources in the contrib bit of the gammu tree. https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gammu;ver=1.23.1-2;arch=i386;stamp=1236036416 doesn't seem to mention it being rebuilt. Can it not be rebuilt from those sources alone? If it's a bug which has been overlooked, that's something else to fix, not a reason for remuco to introduce a similar bug. It seems to me that bug #521448 is an attempt to report this issue for gammu. Unfortunately, it seems that the reporter only complained about the lack of source, which is apparently not the actual issue, and the bug was promptly closed... I am not sure whether the bug should be reopened or maybe another bug report should be filed against gammu. What do others think? -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp9oZIaE4g2B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Zimbra and Yahoo Public License
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:16:12 +0100 (CET) Cedric Fachinetti wrote: [...] Yahoo! Public License, Version 1.1 (YPL) [...] • 6.2 - In the event You violate the terms of this Agreement, Yahoo! may terminate this Agreement. This seems to be the only significant change with respect to version 1.0, which was discussed in the previous thread [1]. The clause has been rephrased slightly, and now it does not explicit state that Yahoo! is to determine whether the licensee is in breach (it did in version 1.0, see [2]). However, I see (from his reply) that Josselin Mouette seems to think that the rephrasing is not enough to make the issue vanish. Anyway, the other issues with the YPL seem to still be present in this new version 1.1 [3]. Hence, I still think that works under the YPL-v1.1 do *not* comply with the DFSG. Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00056.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00067.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00062.html -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpRlQvCMlG6r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: distributing precompiled binaries
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 08:55:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: The PDF needs to come with sources to build the corresponding PDF *using only free software in Debian*, or it's not acceptable for Debian. The same needs to be true of any binary in Debian, AIUI. The DFSG does not say this. Source is only mandatory for programs under the DFSG as written. That's taking the example from the explanation to be the complete requirement. It's reading the text of the actual guideline instead of making inferences based on the title. Also, a PDF is a program for a certain type of interpreter. A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the preferred format for modification of *documentation*, not a program. There's no reason to expect that two different versions of mumble2pdf are going to output two *programs* that resemble one another in the slightest - only that they output the same documentation. And this has all been discussed before. The Source missing entry in the REJECT-FAQ is Your packages contains files that need source but do not have it. These include PDF and PS files in the documentation. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html A recent (Dec 2008) addition with no grounding in the DFSG. If I see PDFs being rejected with this rationale when it's not a question of license compliance (PDFs distributed under the GPL certainly have to have source with them, but that's not a DFSG matter), I certainly intend to dispute it. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
