Re: About a license of a package.
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:40:35 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: >> MakeHuman© code is released under GNU General Public License (GPL v.3) > ^^^ >> >> Copyright© 2001-2007 makehuman.org >> >> 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, version 2. This program is distributed > ^ > > Contradictory. It's possible that this could be interpreted as "licensed > under your choice of GPLv2 or GPLv3", but I would strongly suspect the > intent of the copyright holder is something else. You need to determine > exactly what they mean by this. Indeed, the website is contradictory. The code itself has a similar problem: (at least some of) the headers say GPLv3 or later, but the version of the GPL included as the COPYING file is v2. IMHO, it's clear that the copyright holder formerly intended GPLv2 or later, but now intends GPLv3 or later. If you look at e.g. *, you can see source files very deliberately changed to say GPLv3 or later from GPLv2 or later. I'd put down the remaining references to v2 as an oversight. * The makehuman website links to SourceForge; I'm not linking to random websites to support my point ;) Regards, -- Iain Nicol -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3
Hi, Wow, that's a lot of license text. There are multiple bits in these licenses that I don't like. > TrueCrypt License Version 2.3 > [...] > II. Terms and Conditions for Use, Reproduction, and Distribution > > 1. You [must] ensure that all the legal notices and > documents (containing, e.g., the text of this License, references to > this License, etc.) included with This Product are included with every > copy of This Product that you make and distribute This might be clutching at straws, but I don't like the requirement to include verbatim all "legal notices". My reasoning is that "legal notices" could be interpreted to imply notices about patents. In a jurisdiction that does not allow software patents, I do not think people should be forced to convey notices about patents that simply do not apply to them. I suppose this is why debian-legal likes to analyse the freeness of software as opposed to licenses; my criticism certainly doesn't apply if there are no such patent notices. > III. Terms and Conditions for Modification and Derivation of New > Products > > 1. [...] > > c. Phrase "Based on TrueCrypt, freely available at > http://www.truecrypt.org/"; must be displayed by Your Product (if > technically feasible) I think it's obnoxious to have to have to include this exact phrase in the product (as opposed to just in the documentation, or merely requiring any reasonable attribution). :( However, this is similar to what's allowed in GPLv3. I certainly didn't like the clause in the GPLv3, and I wasn't the only one, but I don't remember there being any consensus that it's non-free. > and contained in its documentation. > [...] In > each of the cases mentioned above in this paragraph, > "http://www.truecrypt.org/"; must be a hyperlink (if technically > feasible) pointing to http://www.truecrypt.org/ Obnoxious. It's generally technically feasible to implement the hyperlink, but it can still be a hassle. For example, the GTK+ about box lets you add a hyperlink easily, but only on its own and not in the middle of arbitrary text. > Your Product (and any associated materials, e.g., the documentation, > the content of the official web site of Your Product, etc.) must not > present any Internet address containing the domain name > truecrypt.org (or any domain name that forwards to the domain name > truecrypt.org) in a manner that suggests that it is where > information about Your Product may be obtained or where bugs found > in Your Product may be reported or where support for Your Product > may be available or otherwise attempt to indicate that the domain > name truecrypt.org is associated with Your Product. It's fair enough that in the derived work you aren't allowed to misrepresent truecrypt.org as the originator of the derived product. However, there's the possibility that I link to a support website out of my control that is subsequently forwarded to truecrypt.org. > VI. General Terms > > 1. You may not use, modify, reproduce, derive from, (re)distribute, or > sublicense This Product, or portion(s) thereof, except as expressly > provided under this License. Any attempt (even if permitted by > applicable law) otherwise to use, modify, reproduce, derive from, > (re)distribute, or sublicense This Product, or portion(s) thereof, > automatically and immediately terminates Your rights under this License. This paragraph explicitly denies rights available under fair use or fair dealing. Hopefully a non-op (?), but not good. All the above was about the "TrueCrypt License version 2.3". The other license I have trouble with is a short one. > > > This is an independent implementation of the encryption algorithm: > > Twofish by Bruce Schneier and colleagues > > which is a candidate algorithm in the Advanced Encryption Standard > programme of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology. > > Copyright in this implementation is held by Dr B R Gladman but I hereby > give permission for its free direct or derivative use subject to > acknowledgment of its origin and compliance with any conditions that the > originators of the algorithm place on its exploitation. I know the reference implementation for Twofish is in the public domain, and it's not been patented. But what happens, hypothetically, if Bruce Schneier were to publicly assert that people should not use the algorithm, say for moral reasons. Or what if he said "people should not use this algorithm [as it is no longer considered secure enough". Could those situations not revoke my license to use this software? IANAL. Regards, -- Iain Nicol -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final text of AGPL v3
Hi, On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:40:09 +0100, John Halton wrote: > Do you (or anyone else) happen to know if the FSF has given any guidance > on what they regard as "interaction over a network"? This is an issue > that came up in the previous thread. It looks like the FSF want this interpreted as broadly as possible. From the rationale of the second draft of the AGPLv3, at <http://gplv3.fsf.org/ agplv3-dd2-rationale.html>: > One thing we did not change is the phrase "interacting with [the > software] remotely through a computer network." Many commenters > expressed concern that this would include not only traditional GUIs > that users manipulate for web-based applications, but also other kinds > of network interaction, such as sending requests to an IMAP or HTTP > server. > > In fact, we did intend such a broad reading. The GNU AGPL needs to > cover all the various protocols and means for network interaction in > order to fully achieve its purpose. > [...] > bringing all kinds of network interaction under the license's scope is > the best way to ensure that the license will function as designed Regards, -- Iain Nicol
Re: Final text of GPL v3
(First: apologies. This message probably won't thread properly. This is because I reading this list via Usenet, but because the Usenet gateway is, I presume, one-way gateway, I have to reply via the list email address. The trouble is my email client has no message to reply to, because it's not my NNTP client.) Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3: > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. [...] > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display > Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive > interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your > work need not make them do so. Francesco Poli worries: > It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any* interactive > interface of my modified work. [...] it seems that when a > non-interactive work is modified so that it becomes an interactive > work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement these features in *any* > newly created interactive interface. Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally? I'm concentrating on the bit from "however". Suppose: I receive a program under the GPL 3. I create a new interface for the program, without the legal notices. The license says that, when distributing my modified version, I "need not make" interfaces of "the Program" that don't display a legal notice display a legal notice. I think, then, to be exempt from the requirement to make user interfaces display legal notices, my modified version of the Program would have to count as just "the Program". Consider that "The Program" is defined as: > "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this > License. When I convey a modified source version, 5c) requires the entire modified work be licensed under the GPL. This then means that when you convey a modified "the Program", the new bits are licensed, and so the whole modified program becomes just "the Program". I do not need to add legal notices to interfaces of "the Program" that lack then. I'm curious how far fetched people think this is. If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep, but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not. -- Iain Nicol -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
