Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)
This one time, at band camp, Florian Weimer said: * Don Armstrong: CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems. Does no one else see a license exception that is easier for a proprietary OS than a free one as problematic? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Licence query
This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said: There is one thing about that license that strikes me as slightly odd. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: In the above grant of permissions, I see no explicit grant to distribute modified versions. It is fairly obvious from the remainder of the license that such permission was intended, but it should still be explicitly mentioned. Permission is granted to ... alter it and redistribute it freely seems like it does just that? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Licence query
This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said: There is one thing about that license that strikes me as slightly odd. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: In the above grant of permissions, I see no explicit grant to distribute modified versions. It is fairly obvious from the remainder of the license that such permission was intended, but it should still be explicitly mentioned. Permission is granted to ... alter it and redistribute it freely seems like it does just that? The first it is clearly referring to the unmodified source. The second it has no other noun to refer to, so must also be referring to the unmodified source. Had the text said something like and redistribute it freely, with or without modification, all would be much clearer. The BSD license uses this precise phrase. One can never be too careful with legal language. One can also try to be slightly sensible. English is an inexact language at the best of times. In this context, the meaning is clear enough - it's a logical and operation. Of course it's possible that some legalistic moron could find a way to argue that the intent of the license is the opposite of what it apparently says, but I doubt it will stand up in any court that counts. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: There were some other people who seemed to more or less agree with Anthony Towns. But he was certainly the loudest one complaining about this. I think it's quite likely I objected to you appearing to speak authoritatively on behalf of the project. However, that has more to do with you saying things like you must or you cannot and less to do with how many acronyms you can invent to stick on the end of your emails. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: licence for Truecrypt
This one time, at band camp, Michael Reichenbach said: Hi! The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. I added it to the wiki. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d How to get a final / official verdict about it? Ask ftp-master. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GDAL HDF4 (HDF-EOS) driver license
This one time, at band camp, Ivan Shmakov said: It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that ``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not? Yes. 'Without fee' in this context is a modifier for 'permission', not for 'purpose'. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: transitive GPL (exim4, OpenSSL, mySQL and others)
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said: Let me understand this in Theory. Given the following link tree: - | program P | - / \ / \ - - | library L | | library M | - - | - | OpenSSL | - If both M and P were GPL with OpenSSL exception, but L were GPL without OpenSSL exception, this linking would be a violation of L's license?`By virtue of P linking to M and L and M linking to OpenSSL? I have been under the impression that the answer is no. You're not linking L to OpenSSL. It could be argued that this was an attempt at defeating the GPL if P was a thin shim layer between L and OpenSSL, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that for our default MTA. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Policy on Binary Firmware Fetching in Main (e.g. foo2zjs)
This one time, at band camp, Michael Gilbert said: and since getweb depends on non-free software and is a part of the package, foo2zjs as a whole is considered to depend on non-free software. No. getweb *downloads* and copies some non-free software, it does not depend on it. does getweb function correctly if the external files are unable to be downloaded? That's not a very useful question - does a web browser function 'correctly' when it gets a 404? It depends entirely on what you mean by correctly, and that starts to feel like there's no bright line test for it. That being said, packages that exist solely to download external non-free content have traditionally been considered contrib material. If this is just a helper script that nothing else in the package uses, it seems perfectly fine to me to keep it in main, but ship the script in examples/ or something. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: virtual box
This one time, at band camp, Olive said: The version of Virtual Box included in Debian is distributed under the GPLv2. So far it's good. But I see in http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads that We do request that anyone intending to redistribute the Open Source Edition contact us first. What do you think of that. It does not seem to be compatible with the GPL and could even be non free. A request is fine. A condition is not. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ogre demos distribution
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: Andres Mejia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] You may use this sample code for anything you like, it is not covered by the LGPL like the rest of the engine. No clear permission to modify or distribute. I think it needs clarifying. Sorry. While it might be useful to get that clarified, I think the intent is fairly clear. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
This one time, at band camp, Shane Martin Coughlan said: Hi Kern Kern Sibbald wrote: As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed: 1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with OpenSSL. I think this is the simplest clause, and it keeps well within the precedent already accepted by the Bacula developers. I saw that there is an OpenSSL exception already proposed by the Debian-legal list: In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give permission to link the code of portions of this program with the OpenSSL library under certain conditions as described in each individual source file, and distribute linked combinations including the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify file(s) with this exception, you may extend this exception to your version of the file(s), but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. If you delete this exception statement from all source files in the program, then also delete it here. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html This seems like a quick and neat solution. Debian guys, anything to add? It looks fine to me. It might be simplest to get rid of the 'under certain conditions as described in each individual source file' subclause, as that could become tedious to maintain. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skype license
This one time, at band camp, Øystein Gisnås said: I got a request from a Skype employee who was eager to distribute Skype with Debian. I replied that the current license probably is not compatible with DFSG and promised to ask debian-legal what has to be done with Skype's license to make it distributable. In it's current form, I don't think Skype is suitable even for non-free. So the primary question is What has to change in Skype's license to make it distributable in non-free?, with the secondary question being the same for main. Even if Skype's license terms weren't so onerous that distribution in non-free was an option, I want to say that I think it's a bad idea to try to include it in any part of Debian. The point of non-free, in my mind, is that there are certain areas of interest where free software just has not caught up or cannot compete with non-free software at the moment (particular examples used to be Netscape, and are probably currently things like flash; other areas might be things like CAD software, should someone find one that is redistributable). VoIP is well supported by free software. Debian is really not well served by promoting a company so uninterested in giving back to the community. We are much better served by promoting the adoption of the currently exiting open standards and protocols that already exist in this area. If there are interoperability, stability, or functionality problems in the free frameworks, I urge you to work on those rather than expending effort on promoting non-free alternatives. Thanks for reading so far, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Final text of GPL v3
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Border-line implies that it could go either direction. This is not true. Regardless of how you feel about this clause, the GPLv2 is recognized as a free license under the DFSG. In this sense, it's border-line: it could be or not be enough to make the license non-free. Upon careful analysis, it turns out to be close to the DFSG-freeness boundary, but fortunately on the free side. This is my own view on clause 2c. IANADD, TINASOTODP (This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position). You continually miss the point that the GPL is explicitly noted as a free license, which means that anything in the GPL is DFSG free. That it doesn't meet your personal standards means that your personal standards are not in line with the DFSG, not that there is a problem with the GPL. Compare with the obnoxious advertising clause of the 4-clause BSD license: it's an inconvenience close to fail the DFSG, IMO. But we accept it as DFSG-free. However, I would *not* be happy to see a license that *extends* this restriction to a wider scenario. The 4-clause BSD is also not close to failing the DFSG. IMHO, it is. IANADD, TINASOTODP. See above. If you don't believe this to hold for the 4 clause BSD, in the grand tradition of -legal, I refer you to the archives. [...] to call something close to non-free is just an expression of your dislike for it, masquerading as an objective judgement. Well, it seems that even DFSG-freeness judgements are not always so objective, or otherwise we would not be discussing about them all the time on this list... Or that some people like to deliberately misinterpret the DFSG in order to grandstand on this list [...] Clause 2c of GPLv2 is close to fail the DFSG, but passes. Clause 5d of GPLv3 is worse (since it's more restrictive, being extended to more cases), and hence it's even closer to fail the DFSG. There is no qualitative difference between the two clauses. We have *never* treated quantitative differences between licenses as relevant to freeness. Would you claim that the GPLv2's make the source available for three years requirement is ok, but a clause saying make the source available for six years is not? I think you are talking about clause 3b of GPLv2, aren't you? Maybe you picked the wrong example, because clause 3b *is* a non-free restriction. Fortunately there's another alternative option, represented by clause 3a, which is DFSG-free, and consequently GPLv2 is acceptable. No, again you have misread the DFSG. 3b is DFSG free, because the DFSG says the GPL v2 is free. Debian currently uses 3a because it is much less effort, but that doesn't mean that 3b is non free. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Final text of GPL v3
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with respect to DFSG-freeness. This is, at least, my humble opinion on the matter. Border-line does not mean that it *fails* the DFSG, but that it's *very close* to fail. Compare with the obnoxious advertising clause of the 4-clause BSD license: it's an inconvenience close to fail the DFSG, IMO. But we accept it as DFSG-free. If you believe this, then you are misreading the DFSG. We explicitly hold those two licenses up as exemplars of a free software license, to make it clear what the rest of the DFSG is about. If you find the exemplars are close to failing your idea of what the DFSG means, then your idea is wrong. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New Ion3 licence
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28 days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like to commit to that, and certainly the package would have to remain unreleased. So I think this would require a package name change. Any other opinion on that? It would also require the package(s) to be moved to the non-free archive, I think. Then I think you've misread. Patch clauses and name change clauses are explicitly allowed under the DFSG, although they are discouraged for obvious reasons. The fact that some revisionists dislike them doesn't make them fodder for non-free. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Johnson said: I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence claiming to be Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5 which is considerably shorter and afaict is free. I wanted to check here before packaging, however. The relevant segment is included here and the full copying.txt is attached. We are aware that the songs and fonts need replacing before packaging. All data files, except the songs and the font files mentioned above, are licensed under the following license: Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5 That looks fine. Distribution, modification or commercial usage of the songs is not allowed. This is a showstopper. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said: However, even removing the white space from a program can make it signficantly more difficult to debug and comprehend, even though it can be reversed with tools that are readily available. I don't think anyone is arguing that this sort of thing should be encouraged. Just pointing out that it doesn't break our ability to redistribute under the GPL. I wouldn't package or maintain such a thing, and I'd prbably look sideways at someone who wants to. But as for license issues? I don't see a problem there. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said: I was able to run the JavaScript code through GNU indent (http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/ ) and get readable and modifiable output. I think there are some special-purpose JavaScript beautifiers out there that could give even better formatting. I don't think that this is a case where the user gets unmodifiable source. However, the GPL requires the prefered form for modification to be provided. And what the author uses to modify is definitely not the whitespace-free version. Given that the only difference between the version you see and the version the author modifies is whitespace, I don't think there's a real 'freedom' issue. It might be nice if the author built this into the build system so it was something you didn't have to worry about this, but I really don't see this as a violation of the preferred form for modification clause, sorry. I've always read that as being intended for people that want to ship only an .o or other intermediate, compiled version of the program. In this case, you have a pretty lossless converter. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ttf-tuffy: The Tuffy Font Family
This one time, at band camp, Fabian Greffrath said: Public Domain Fonts Here are my dabblings in font design. I have placed them in the Public Domain. This is all 100% my own work. Usage is totally unrestricted. If you want to make derivative works for any purpose, please go ahead. I welcome comments constructive criticism. Is this explicitely free enough for inclusion in Debian's main section? May this be the content of a debian/copyright file? I would say it looks fine. It is clear he means to allow redistribution, although he doesn't explicitly say so. I guess some one could argue that that might be a problem, but I don't think so, given the tone of the rest of the statement. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said: On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO. Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that you're not a lawyer. That should be abundantly apparent to anyone who has been paying attention. Regardless, it doesn't dismiss the crux of the argument: baring competent legal advice to the contrary,[1] distributing sourceless GPLed works is not clear of legal liability. Doing otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operators in peril. I think the argument here revolves around whether the GPL is a contract to our users, or a license from the copyright holders. If it is a license from the copyright holders, than the only ones who can sue Debian for distribution of sourceless GPL'ed works are, er, the people who originally gave out those works in that form. I understand there is some contention around whether this claim is accurate (and I claim no deep understanding of international copyright and contract law to make a claim for either side), but I think that is the fairly simple counter argument. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hypocrisy of Debian (was: Sorry, no more RC bugs for non-free data in main ...)
This one time, at band camp, Markus Laire said: On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Markus Laire writes: I used to believe that Debian only included legal, DFSG-free software in main, but cdrtools fiasco seems to prove that I was wrong. Ever since the issue in cdrtools was found, the Debian maintainers have been trying to convince the awkward upstream developer to fix his licensing. These things take time. So they've been doing this for 2 years, and have included non-DFSG-free cdrtools in main while doing so? They even shipped Sarge with this known non-DFSG-free package in main? IMHO cdrtools should've been removed from main while this process was underway. Feel free to do some work on the problem, instead of just insulting people and grandstanding. In the end, those same maintainers have given up on that as a lost cause and instead have started work on a free cdrtools fork that will ship in etch instead of cdrtools. Do you have any link/source to support the claim that this will be fixed for etch? I havn't found any such information. Is there a public source-code-repository for this fork? Have you looked? It's been announced in several places. Please don't start throwing around insulting terms like hypocrisy - they're not going to gain you any friends, nor are they going to encourage people to devote their valuable time to Free Software projects. If my comments about hypocrisy are true, then I don't care about friends whom I might lost because of speaking the truth. Then it would also be appropriate for people to be discouraged from devoting their valuable time to hypocritical Free Software projects. If I was wrong, then I can only apologize and try to be more carefull in the future. First, I guess you owe Steve and Eduard apologies. Second, it's not particularly helpful to tell people that are actually working on a problem that they are hypocritical or just 'claiming' to work on something. If you feel that this is a problem, get involved and work on it, instead of slinging mud at people. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DomainKeys license(s)
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said: Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since DFSG apparently (according to the recent discussion) only deals with copyright and restrictions imposed by the copyright owner It's quite apparent from reading the DFSG that there's no such limitation. The DFSG in particular are concerned with the rights that pertain to the software as received by the user, and are not limited in domain to any specific legal system. As I understand the issue, there are roughly three forms of things which can encumber software: copyrights/licenses, trademarks, and patents. Iterating over that list in a non-linear order: trademarks are a no-op. The DFSG allows for name-change clauses (DFSG 4). This allows us to modify and redistribute without infringing trademarks if need be. No freedom issue here. copyright/license issues are the mainstay of -legal for a very good reason - these are cross jurisdictional. If I obtain a piece of software under a certain license, I am bound by the terms of that license whether I live and work in the UK or Zimbabwe. Patents on the other hand are completely jurisdiction dependant. If there is a software patent in the US, are you of the opinion that French Debian developers should be bound by it? In particular, the Chinese government has shown itself to be quite happy to overlook Euro-American patents; which legal system are you going to hold Chinese Debian developers to? While it's true that the DFSG doesn't address these forms of restrictions directly, arbitrarily stating that we should now respect random patent rulings in random jurisdictions is not particularly helpful. It has been Debian's policy that we care about patents only when they are actively enforced, and that seems a reasonably prudent path to me. But to be clear, this is not a freedom issue per se - we just can't do anything about the government, even though the license itself might be free. So, if the domain keys patent is under active enforcement, this software probably should not be approved by the ftp masters. If it is not under active enforcement, and is under a free license, there is no reason not to have it in main. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:25:31 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote: Considering that we think it's OK for the author to request to be /added/ to the authorship credits, Let me understand this better, because I cannot remember having discussed it before... Is it OK for the author to request to be added to the credits even when satisfying the request would cause the authorship credits to become inaccurate? Can I request to be added to the authorship credits of a work I took really really little part in? Can I do the same for a work I never contributed to in any manner? Why would it be? And what reason do you have to think these bizarre queries are related to the issue at hand? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: This still concerns me... I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not yet convinced that this clause passes the DFSG. What I do not understand basically boils down to: How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit and meet the DFSG at the same time? This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett said: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. If it's important that Chinese Dissidents be able to release software without putting their name all over it or telling anyone about it, it would seem logical for them to be able to ensure that they be able to demand people remove any credits that they may have accidently left on a piece of software. This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: I don't think that this clause was designed with such a scenario in mind. I'm pretty sure that its goal is preventing that an ugly Adaptation reflects on the Original Author's reputation. As I already stated elsewhere, clarifying that the Adaptation is not the Original Work, but the result of modifications made by someone else, is IMO sufficient to prevent any negative impacts on the Original Author's reputation. And why do you think this violates the DFSG? Clause 3, which you are citing, says that the license must allow derived works, and must allow derivates to be licensed under the same terms as the original license. I see nothing in there that even remotely implies the original author can't take their name out of it. Leaving aside practical issues, how are you arguing that a request to remove a name either changes the licensing terms or prohibits derivation? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Software patents and Debian
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit. The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks about the rights attached to the program and other such phrases. To the extent that those rights are granted or restricted by holders of patents, the DFSG addresses patents. The DFSG is concerned with the rights that the copyright holder extends to us, and by extension, people using software in Debian. This does not, and can not, cover local patent laws. Are you arguing that you would like Debian to remove every piece of software that might potentially be covered by a patent in any jurisdiction Debian distributes software to? If so, please let me know what packages are acceptable for distribution. My bet is that they are countable in single digits. I leave it to you to research this, since it apparently interests you. If not, what are you arguing? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Software patents and Debian
This one time, at band camp, Weakish Jiang said: Bas Wijnen wrote: I thought we didn't care about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets patented. Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the opposite of current practice. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while the advertising clause was not removed until 1999. However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons. I understand that many people are unhappy with the advertising clause. I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so clearly laid out in the DFSG. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, John Goerzen said: Hi, The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so clearly laid out in the DFSG. Debian-legal often gives advice beyond what is required. For example, the DFSG says nothing about license proliferation. Would you have debian-legal refrain from telling people to use standard licenses? It is not like the original response (Accepted but unpopular) was incorrect. It is accepted, but it is also unpopular. Since the original question was (quoted above) about what the current policy is, it is disingenuous at best to pretend that it is anything but whole heartedly supported. If you have personal issues with the license, feel free to express them as an individual, just don't try to misrepresent those opinions as the opinions of Debian. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep -i landry /var/lib/apt/lists/* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Maybe the problem here is that you haven't agreed to follow the DFSG? The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian. If you, as a private netizen, have problems with the 4 clause BSD license, that's fine. Just please represent your opinions as your opinions. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] What the statement reduces to is: licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions, and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may be consequences Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a restriction. Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something if that is not what it means? It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree. `dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there may be issues around export controls in one country. Agreeing to a 'may' clause is in any event a non-issue. It's not like the license says you must follow the rules around those export controls. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow the DFSG. I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere. I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license. I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it. Neither of these are freeness issues. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Ken Arromdee said: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However, the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so he is barred from using the software. I don't think you've read what you're replying to. If your hypothetical person is working to overturn a law, then there is an a priori acknowledgement that the law exists, correct? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something if that is not what it means? It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree. `dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there may be issues around export controls in one country. You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I completely disagree with it, and that agreeing in the license's strange use means nothing at all. Why do you think that the license wants me to do something that according to you does not entail doing anything after all? That does not make sense; the licensor would not have written the clause unless he intended it to restrict what I can do. Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion. The authors of the license are not asking you to agree with the idea of export licensing. They are asking you to agree to the following statement: As things currently stand in the us, there are some things subject to export licensing. If you export $thing, you can either first get a license, or you may get in trouble with the government. The 'require' comes from the US governement, not the authors of the license. I think we can both agree that the author's assessment matches current reality, so it doesn't seem worth debating that. Finally, failure to get the license may (only may, not will, must, or even 'really should') get you in trouble under US laws, and in no way affects your status as licensee. Does that clear things up? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? 'Agreeable' is not precisely a derivative of 'agree'. I agree that if I drink alot of beer, I may very well be hung over the next morning. it does not mean I am in the least agreeable about the situation. What the statement reduces to is: licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions, and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may be consequences Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a restriction. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public Licence
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said: El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía: But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would apply to you in any case. It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's: applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the license, I'd have to comply anyway. I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5. It is there, no matter being additive or not: Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be more clear this time around. It says (broken down into more discreet grammtaical elements) You shall comply with all applicable laws (list 1 .. 4), including but not just element 2. If the the applicable laws in your country don't include element 2, this is a nonsense statement. If it said instead: You must comply with all applicable laws of your country, including the Sharia, do you think it means that in countries that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction? Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions. Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly, 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's hardly non-free. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Revised Bacula license
This one time, at band camp, Josh Triplett said: John Goerzen wrote: Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look and it looks good to me. This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. [...] Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These software files are clearly marked as such. If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries. This would need to be reviewed, I think, before being sure. It is my understanding that bacula uses a client/server implementation, so it is not clear to me that a lack of an excemption in the client code would prevent the server (with proper excemption) from linking to ssl. But as you say, this is not a freeness issue, just a useability one. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPLed libraries dfsg compatible?
This one time, at band camp, Moritz Lenz said: Hello, I want to debianize EiffelStudio, a compiler and IDE for the programming language eiffel. It is dual-licenced under a commercial licence and under GPL. Included in EiffelStudio is the so called Base Library, released under the GPL as well. This library is absolutely nesseary for programming with eiffel, you are not able to write any program that does not use the Base Library. With this licencing model you are forced to release your programs written in EiffelStudio (GPL version) under the GPL as well. Can we regard this software as dfsg compatible? Absolutely. It is a viral license, but that is the point, and Debian considers the GPL to be free. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.
This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 29 avril 2006 à 23:37 +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell a écrit : The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced Video Coding standards. I have already stated this: Debian shouldn't have anything to do with regard to patents. We should entirely ignore them unless directly threatened, and such issues that depend so much on the country should be up to the end-user to deal with. Like it or not, we can't completely ignore them in Debian. Each mirror operator needs to make their own decisions about their liability in their own country, but Debian itself needs to be careful about distributing works which have patents in the United States[1] where the patent holders are well known and have been inolved in patent litigation against individuals using their patents. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it use, not distribution, that requires a patent license? As I understand it, yes, with the caveat that patents laws are not uniform, of course. But given that this is the general case, it seems like a non-issue as far as Debian is concerned. We have historically ignored them for exactly this reason. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Void license problem
This one time, at band camp, Nacho Barrientos Arias said: Hey! I need to package some libraries that are dependency of a package i'm working on. The license files of this libs says that this software is public domain, i need the definition of 'public domain' from upstream author or is it DFSG compliant? This libs can be downloaded here: http://libtomcrypt.com/ Well, that's an extraordinarily noisy website. A link to the actual licenses might motivate me more, but generally speaking, if they just say public domain without any additional disclaimers or riders, that should be fine. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: infos about alien licenses
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. The word 'should' has a fairly straight forward meaning in the English language. This does not present a problem, as far as I can see. It is substantively no different from the standard: Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law. It is a disclaimer telling you they take no responsibility if you use it in a situation that endagers human life or property. No problem. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: infos about alien licenses
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:25:54AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define should. I'd take it as just being a restatement of the whole no warranty, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces thing, but it could be read as forbidding use in the mentioned areas. The word 'should' has a fairly straight forward meaning in the English language. I just had a look at 'dict should' and it was a bit more complicated than you make out. There's also the legal English alternative -- there's plenty of words that have different interpretation in legal documents than they do in colloquial usage. Should in legal English has much the same use and meaning as it does in the RFC's - it means roughly 'it would be good if ...' but does not mean 'we require ...'. I understand that you came to the same conclusion, but I wanted to be clear here. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Package copyright problems
This one time, at band camp, Benjamin A'Lee said: On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:22 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Jesse van den Kieboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United States export control laws. This is a non-free condition. Surely it'd only be non-free if it said must comply with United States export control laws? Outside the US, US export laws are not applicable, so the condition doesn't apply. Or am I missing something? You are correct. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packaging fst and dssi-vst
This one time, at band camp, Free Ekanayaka said: Hi all, I'd like to one or both of these two applications: http://dssi.sourceforge.net http://joebutton.co.uk/fst/ in Debian. Basically they allow running VST audio plugins under Linux, using wine. Both of them are GPL, but unfortunately depend at build time on the VST SDK, which is non-free: http://www.steinberg.de/Steinberg/Developers8b99.html However, once compiled, they do not need the above headers anymore. I already maintain a few packages, and if there is a chance to see these two in Debian I'll be glad to take care of them. dssi is already in Debian, and doesn't use non-free software to build. For the other, I have no idea, but if it really needs non-free software to build, it's not suitable for main, at least. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL v3 Draft
Olive, this guy is just a troll. Feeding him just seems to make him waste more of Debian's bandwidth and my spambox. My advice is to leave him be. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?
This one time, at band camp, Junichi Uekawa said: However, portaudio looks non-free to me. http://www.portaudio.com/license.html: * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version. While it would be nice to have that clarified (so as to put it outside the 'conditions' block), it clearly says 'request', which does not have the same meaning as 'require'. I am not sure how a request to do something is non-free. We allow requests in other licenses (charityware and so forth spring to mind immediately). -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#316487: debian-installer-manual: Missing copyright credit: Karsten M. Self for section C.4
This one time, at band camp, Glenn Maynard said: On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:58:07PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So you think it's acceptable to have a work in main, whose license is if you're Debian, you're never allowed to remove this work, or I'll sue you for an unrelated, already-fixed[1] past violation? I don't like throwing around overly loaded words, but I can't find any word short of extortion that accurately represents what this seems to be. Do you really not understand actual license issues? There is, as I understand it, a currently released work, which knowingly incorporates a substantial amount of Karsten's work, and violates his license in doing so. This is not some hypothetical case that is being beaten to death on -legal about whether some stipulation or other is free enough, this is a real case of Debian violating a license. The past violation is not fixed. That is the only important thing here. If maintainers want to do a blackbox rewrite so as to avoid the onerous condition of adding the line 'some parts written by Karsten Self', then that is up to them to deal with for future releases. That is not the issue here, and if you think it is, you've missed the boat. Which bit of We've been knowingly violating a license for over 2 years, and so we're the bad guys is unclear here? Debian has offered to correct it, in a perfectly acceptable and legitimate manner. In my viewpoint, (a) is not wrong in any ethical or moral way (legally, I don't know and would prefer not to guess); coercing Debian maintainers to include a work in future releases against their will and judgement is. You are wrong on two points as far as I can see: Debian has not offered to correct it. What has been offered is excision from future releases. This does nothing for present and past releases. Karsten is not attempting to coerce anyone to do anything. He has simply stated fairly straightforward facts. Debian has been violating his license for several years; he would like it corrected in released works. If Debian continues to use his works, they should abide by his license for future releases. If, for some obscure reason, the maintainers feel it is easier to rewrite four pages of text than properly credit a long term contributor to the Debian project, then that is their prerogative, but it is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Also, rather simply put, I think we would be doing badly by the project as a whole if we were to start telling contributors that we would rather excise their work and rewrite it rather than acknowledge a contribution. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Status of icons in latex2html
Hello all, I am packaging clamav, and upstream uses latex2html to generate the html documentation for it. The problem is that upstream has not been including the icons from latex2html in the distributed tarball, breaking links for users who don't happen to have latex2html installed (the hyperlinks point to a latex2html install, rather than the same directory) So, I would like to ship the icons in the .deb, and repoint the links. My problem is: is this legal? Here is what I think is the relevant part of the copyright: o Any work distributed or published that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of this software or any part thereof is subject to the terms of this agreement. The aggregation of another unrelated program with this software or its derivative on a volume of storage or distribution medium does not bring the other program under the scope of these terms. Do the icons count as 'contains or is a derivative of this software'? It might mean yes, but I thought I would solicit suggestions. It makes no difference to me - I'll just not ship them if they are non-free; it saves the postinstall uudecode step as well :) My fear is that if the rest of the license applies, it appears to be make it incompatible with the GPL, although I am not sure. Please cc: me on replies, as I am not subscribed. Reply-To and M-F-T set accordingly. Thanks all, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpdRcsoNAiZZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Packaging of dvd software
Hello all, I have just asked on -mentors, and been referred to you for this question, so here I am. I am considering packaging a small (15K compressed) utility that extracts data from video dvd's. It does not link against libdvdcss, although it will use it if found. The program itself is GPL, so no problems with licensing, but I am wondering if this is legal for Debian to redistribute. It does not itself burn new dvd's, merely extracts the data from them in such a way that it is then easy to burn them to a new disc with `mkisofs -dvd-video` and dvdrecord. The thing I am unsure about is the whole area of dvd ripping - does the DMCA co. prohibit this sort of thing entirely, making it impossible for Debian to redistribute it? Is it legal to just extract to hard drive and file sharing is when one gets into problems? I see that transcode is not in Debian, so I am assuming there are some problems of this sort, although I am not sure. If someone who has familiarity with these issues cares to enlighten me, I would appreciate it. Please cc: me, as I am not subscribed to -legal. I have set the Reply-To: header to reflect this. TIA, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgp5aG5vSjUKC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packaging of dvd software
This one time, at band camp, Glenn Maynard said: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:21:36PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote: I have just asked on -mentors, and been referred to you for this question, so here I am. I am considering packaging a small (15K compressed) utility that extracts data from video dvd's. It does not link against libdvdcss, although it will use it if found. The program If it uses the library if found, then it links against it; it's just doing the linking itself (presumably with dlopen and friends) instead of having ld.so do it. You are correct - I oversimplified when I didn't need to. I really meant to say it doesn't link against it at build time, and therefor doesn't need to go into contrib only because of non-free Build-Depends. Sorry to be unclear. Not being a requirement is significant, though, as it (in some cases) can keep a program from being forced into contrib. Right. This is what I meant to address. Please cc: me, as I am not subscribed to -legal. I have set the Reply-To: header to reflect this. Reply-To only indicates what address to use when replying to you directly. In order to indicate that you want CC's on list followups, you need to set the Mail-Followups-To header. Gotcha - will keep in mind for the future. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpf2THB9UPOI.pgp Description: PGP signature
