debian-legal denizens may be able to offer
advice on good ways to approach the upstream developer.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
Confirmed
.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
, there are no
actions which may only be performed by the original copyright holder;
*everyone* could take the code proprietary. This license seems
obnoxious, but not non-free.
Is there some other scenario (or facet of these scenarios) that you had
in mind?
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
modifications and derived works had to be distributed
on several occasions that the statement he has
made regarding the user/kernel boundary and the GPL was simply a
clarification regarding derived works: a program written to standard
UNIX interfaces is clearly not a derivative of Linux, HURD, or any other
particular UNIX system.
- Josh Triplett
get copyrights for works they author.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
and object
code corresponds to typeset form, and add an exception to any clauses
you don't care about. However, I don't think that's a good idea, and I
don't think people will be confused by a GPLed document.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
is this different from
your case?
Hold on a second. You seem to be arguing against the established
interpretation of the GPL here: at least according to the FSF, you may
not distribute the GPL-incompatible Foo compiled against GNU readline,
linked or not.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
, but does not in this case. This
would imply that GDAL would have to go into contrib, since this library
is non-free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
a compiled binary does; if it
does, we have a problem. Undocumented code, on the other hand, while
rather annoying, is not an issue of freedom.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
convinced otherwise.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
and the DFSG, or on anyone who doesn't support
reading the DFSG as a checklist. Perhaps it's a milestone: we've become
a sufficiently well-established forum to have picked up regular trolls.
:) Please don't let a few people spoil your outlook on debian-legal as
a whole.
- Josh Triplett
would stay in
main
* latex2html is released under the GPL and moved to main.
The author has already said he would do this with the next version, but
that next version may be a long time off; the best solution would be a
permission statement.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
ranting, which seems to be a far-too-common opinion :( ).
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
to the filename, rather than just
speaking in general about clear and conspicuous notices or similar;
I'm not sure if that's non-free or not though.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
was that it does retroactively rescind the clause for all software
copyrighted by UC Berkeley, including older versions. However, it
certainly can't affect software copyrighted by others; for such
software, you need to get permission from the copyright holders.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...]
:)
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
Indeed, I agree that it's
discussions of the IBM Public License,
and the clear consensus was that forcing the licensor to waive their
right to a jury trial is definitely non-free. Thanks for catching that one.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/gpl.html works for the
GPL, though in the ideal case you should include a copy of the GPL with
the work.
Other than that, it looks fine.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Mandelberg
P.S. debian-legal: please CC me on all replies as I'm not subscribed.
I suggest using the wording suggested by Branden Robinson in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html ; the part
starting with I refuse to assert copyright.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
license for wordlists (that keeps the list
non-proprietary)? Is there a suited license
for an explainatory dictionary?
See above; the GPL should work just fine for a wordlist and for a
dictionary.
Hope this helps,
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
of the NetBSD port telling
them the software is available under a Free Software license (as they
currently have a note about the non-commercial-use restriction).
This is an astounding success; thank you.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
to the libdb4.2 package, already in main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
this condition for convenience, and that's fine; the resulting
license would still be free, just less of a copyleft.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No; the problem is that the *work*, meaning the Debian logo, would be
non-free, because it would not grant all the rights required by the
DFSG. Specifically, you could not take the logo and use it in any way
you choose, in any
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
So... what is the DFSG restriction that's violated?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:51:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
DFSG 6.
Suppose I wrote a license that granted all the standard rights to use,
copy, modify, and distribute, but that placed some non-free
Raul Miller wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt
as they are not all distributed together.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
eddyp wrote:
I am planning to package an application covered by the Spin Public License.
Could you tell me if this :
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/spin/SPIN_public_license.txt
is a free or non-free license?
In general, when requesting that debian-legal review a license, it is
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
I think the ideal solution would be to change hspell so that it can
build outside of the OO.o source tree; as far as I know, it is OK to
have some GPLed and some non-free plugins for the same LGPLed program,
as long as they are not all distributed
), adding license notices to each file,
or preferably both.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find
again
until now:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The trademark rights are entirely separate, and there's no reason for
Debian to license them in any way other than Free for use if there's
no confusion with Debian, either because they refer to Debian or
because they're
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Please note that I did not say that a work is non-free if it can be
transformed to contain a trademarked item, any more than a work is
non-free if it can be transformed to contain a copyrighted work to which
we don't have a Free license
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the
drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that
interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that
identifies a project. GCC, grub, Linux
in main or contrib; otherwise, you are doing a disservice to
another important class of users, namely those who count on Debian to be
true to its stated values and keep the clear distinction between main,
contrib, and non-free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. Thanks for the concise
description.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
argument, that's equivalent to the scenario where they have to fetch it
separately. Why not let ndiswrapper go to main? And if you think
that's acceptable, why is anything in contrib? After all, why
differentiate between NDIS drivers and any other form of non-free
software dependency?
- Josh Triplett
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
words being called a name.
Why should this be an issue?
It's clear that trademarks serve an identification role. We interpret
the DFSG
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DFSG-free. On the other hand, requirements such as *acknowledge the
origin of the logo*, *do not misrepresent the origins of the logo*, and
*do not falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian* are
perfectly
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant
barrier
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:43:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anyone who distributes the work, modified or unmodified. I don't think
we can't regulate use and be Free; fortunately, most uses of the logo
are distributions, such as putting it on a website, or stamping
.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something
non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using
the logo only to refer to Debian, only that when referring to something
else, they can't say
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
every single occurance of the word Mozilla when making a modified
version? :) I said top-level name, and I meant exactly that. To the
extent
about the algorithm will the
code be released under the GPL.
Keep in mind that FFTW is GPLed, so unless you have made other
arrangements with its copyright holders, you need to refrain from
supplying the code or binaries to anyone unless under the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
under
the GPL, and therefore we cannot distribute the software at all.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Loïc Minier wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon, Oct 18, 2004:
I don't believe you can. In order to distribute software under the GPL,
we must provide the preferred form for modification of that software,
which is the source. From your description, it sounds like such source
exists
, that is
highly unfortunate, but it seems as though it may continue for the near
future; hopefully this problem will be avoidable eventually, either
through more open hardware or through replacements such as LinuxBIOS.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
that is a common occurance, and at a minimum it should be clearly
documented if it is the case.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
, how do you even know the other version is
usable at all? It sounds as though it would not be sufficient for many
applications.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
Since there's one GPL question left, I am still posting to debian-legal.
The legal question is marked ** for those who want to skip the rest.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:49:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Whether your university owns a license or not does
had
that functionality in the first place.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
it is a
rather common misinterpretation.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
immediately
after the Sarge release.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
violating is
copyright law, since they are distributing without a license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:46:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is clearly not appropriate; it is not perfectly reasonable to
install a driver package without the firmware, any more than it is
reasonable to install a dynamically-linked binary without its shared
library
Joel Baker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
True enough, but as processors get faster, so does bandwidth.
I expect that ultimately, it will always need to be as fast as possible.
Possibly; however, I think bandwidth grows far
that
this will not continue be an issue in the future.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
message and return an error code. If that is your
definition of fully functional, then perhaps we should include all the
programs in contrib that link to non-free shared libraries in main;
after all, someone might just want to see a linker error message. :)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
require drivers (to provide APIs). :) So by your arguments, why can't
this game go in main?
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
However, suppose that your statement were true. Why stop there?
Consider the case of a piece of hardware which could not be initialized
correctly except by the Windows driver. In order for the device to
work, a user would need
it depends were
dropped from the Debian archive, which makes no sense.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
without the firmware than the
program without the library.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
I would disqualify that driver from main not because it depended on a
Windows driver, but because it depended on having Windows itself.
I see; so some dependencies on non-free software are to be considered
acceptable, while others
compromise solution
for what sounds more like a technical problem.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
that the
sources are in the public domain, and include the email from der Mouse
authorizing this in the debian/copyright file.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
It is certainly the case that I would like our users to be able to use
their computers regardless of the mechanism that the vendor uses to ship
firmware, yes. Remember that we don't ship contrib as part
if the levels are public domain as well.
The game
is on the net since 1991 (even though it is pretty unknown),
and by now there were no objections, AFAIK.
This is not to prove that the game levels are public domain or otherwise
Free, although it does make it far more likely.
- Josh Triplett
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
We could do that, but it couldn't reasonably form part of the standard
debian-installer. A forked d-i doesn't do anyone any favours.
I don't see why we couldn't put support for using contrib udebs for
things
/compress.c [2]
xc/util/compress/usermem.sh [2]
The above license does not appear to be DFSG-free at all. It allows
redistribution and use, but not modification or distribution of modified
versions.
- Josh Triplett
to be DFSG-free.
- Josh Triplett
from the originals _by a program_ would be non-free,
and would not be allowed by trademark law anyway. The desired
restriction here, which is perfectly free, is that a _person_ can
distinguish between the original and the modified version, because of
the lack of endorsement.
- Josh Triplett
say that the location must still work, so providing the
location where you obtained the document (or if you obtained a modified
version, the location given by that distributor) should be sufficient.
A requirement to continually check that the location worked would
clearly be non-free.
- Josh
to contradict the license below. But I'll assume it doesn't
for now...
I think this refers to the license itself, not the software covered by
it, much like the GPL's Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute
verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed..
- Josh Triplett
.
Overall, this license appears to be DFSG-free but GPL-incompatible.
- Josh Triplett
be in a better position to ask
than a Debian Developer). In the meantime, the firmware should be
removed. If the rest of the QLogic driver is not usable without this
firmware, it should be removed as well.
- Josh Triplett
in the GPL, due to the last clause:
unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
- Josh Triplett
to agree on an exception clause, or
simply not use the library. Considering the sheer volume of GPLed
software, using a non-GPL-compatible license on a library seems likely
to discourage widespread usage.
- Josh Triplett
think most of them are summarised [1]here.
[1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
And in Nathanael Nerode's excellent Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL
paper, at http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html .
- Josh Triplett
in the category of all the other
software in Debian that is probably covered by many different patents
(progress bar, etc): leave it unless someone actually starts enforcing
the patent, and decide what to do then, and in the meantime don't go
looking for patents that affect the software.
- Josh Triplett
Yggdrasil copyrights
on GPL-licensed kernel contributions (just as I believe they
infringe many other authors' GPL-licensed contributions).
- Josh Triplett
-lawyer. However, neither the original license nor the
interpretation is a Free Software license.
- Josh Triplett
systems.
- Josh Triplett
.
- Josh Triplett
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
* 4. Products derived from this software may not be called VOCAL, nor
*may VOCAL appear in their name, without prior written
*permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
This license appears
or any other copyleft license is likely to be much
longer than most posts to the forum, or even many entire threads.
- Josh Triplett
of quoting and comment. The full text follows.
- Josh Triplett
xzx license:
Permission to use, distribute, and sell this software and its documentation
for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that the above
copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice
and the date of any change.
As long as opinions are not misrepresented, people have the ability to
read different documents with different opinions and make a rational
choice as to what they believe, without being misled by twisted words.
- Josh Triplett
, which would not be DFSG-free.
- Josh Triplett
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Unless the derived document falls under section 7, AGGREGATION WITH
INDEPENDENT WORKS (which requires that more than half of the document
consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed document), you
.
But if you are forced to include certain text in modified documents, and
that text violates a trademark unless the document is unmodified, then
the work is DFSG-non-free.
- Josh Triplett
it finds
acceptable. Rather than go down that path, we reject all such conditions.
- Josh Triplett
.
FYI, we've had a discussion of these before; I forget exactly what term
we used to call them, but it's in the list archives...
I think it was snippets.
- Josh Triplett
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Unless the derived document falls under section 7, AGGREGATION WITH
INDEPENDENT WORKS (which requires that more than half of the document
consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed
1 - 100 of 438 matches
Mail list logo
