Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 16:03, Brian Ristuccia wrote: You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/dsp, right? Yes. Interestingly enough, those files are in RIFF format. It's a structured multimedia container format. Interesting. Embedded somewhere in the header of v90.dsp is the string MICROCODE SOURCE MATERIALS. MWAVE MICROCODE. (C) COPYRIGHT IBM CORP. 1997. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. It also looks like there's full symbols. Perhaps these files are the source code, when opened with some proprietary dsp firmware editor we don't have? Possibly; but I suspect that these files contain binaries, not source code. Has anyone asked IBM yet? I wrote once got no reply. I have just written again to the guys who ported the driver to Linux. -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License requirements for DSP binaries?
The mwavem package includes binaries for the Mwave(tm) digital signal processor (DSP) chip found on some ThinkPad(tm). With the binaries installed the Mwave implements a modem. IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that it says is licensed under the GPL. http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) Is the statement that the GPL covers the binaries good enough for Debian, or should we ask IBM for a separate license for the DSP files? -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey.
Suggested small improvements to the (already excellent) DFSG FAQ
[Barak Pearlmutter's mail comes back no matter how I send it, so I am posting to the list] The FAQ is very good. Here are some suggestions for further improvement. 26. [...] OSS was also meant to sound more professional and hence more attractive to businesses. You might also mention after this that it turned out that the term 'open source' could not be registered as a trademark in the United States after all. And it contains an even more serious ambiguity that the word 'free', in that some companies open their source code for people to examine without granting them the right to make changes or to pass on copies. Bruce Perens himself has confessed that coining a competing term might not have been such a great idea. http://linuxtoday.com/developer/1999061503710NWSM The problem of the ambiguity with the word 'free' is best resolved NOT by saying 'free as in speech' (since the freedom we are concerned about is not exactly the same freedom as the freedom of speech) NOR by adopting the word 'libre', but by speaking where necessary about software freedom or freedom to write, share and use software. Bruce Perns Perens 27. [...] Debian encourages corporations to create products based on Debian GNU/Linux, and such corporations include or have included Progeny, Lindows, Corel, and others. Progeny GNU/Linux is no more. Corel Linux has become Xandros. The Corel link links to some funny site about Hell. 28. [...] Automation and increased efficiency often reduce the number of jobs in some category and this is something we accept--- buggy whip manufacturers come to mind. 'Buggy whip manufacturers' traditionally refers to an industry, not to a profession. You could say 'coal miners' or 'hatters'. 29. [...] The name is a bit of a joke, as the term comes from the Four Freedoms Speech delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in which he ... I suggest: The term 'four freedoms' is a play on words used by the American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a speech in which he ... -- Thomas Hood
Re: DFSG FAQ (draft)
On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 15:42, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: Q. How can I find out if there are known doubts about the freedom of a particular package in Debian but for some reason they have not yet led to it being removed from the archive? I agree that this is an important QA to have. This is arguably covered in the answer to what is debian-legal at the top of the document. Does this extra material provide more information? It just says that debian-legal is where we discuss this kind of thing, which is already (I hope) clear. The phrase known doubts needs some explanation, I think. I suggest the following. There are no knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. To these immortal words of D. Rumsfeld, we need only add: Having been discovered, the unknowns are no longer unknown, but have become known knowns. And this causes us to have doubts. There are things that we know we doubt, and things that we doubt we know, and ... -- Thomas Hood
Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'
. How would we state this requirement? Do we require the licensee to provide tools for generating *all* forms of the program in his possession so that we can choose the one we prefer? That seems too burdensome. However, I can't think of a weaker requirement that doesn't allow the licensee off the hook too easily. Enough for now. Thanks for the good feedback. -- Thomas Hood
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose. 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the ^to work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the source code), if applicable, is a precondition for this. 3) The freedom to redistribute copies of the Work. 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications, if applicable, is a precondition for this. What's the difference between change ... for any purpose (#4) and adapt ... to one's needs (#2)? If they mean the same thing then one of them is superfluous. It they mean different things then the difference should be made clearer. Looking at the FSF original, I see that #2 is the freedom to study how the program works ... and adapt I think you should restore the word 'study', since that seems to be the essence of the second FSF freedom. Also, access to source is a precondition for studying a program, but not necessary for adapting a program. I can adapt Microsoft Windows to my needs without the source code. By the way, it would be better if you preserved the FSF's numbering for these freedoms: FSF numbers them from zero through three. The fifth freedom you add is addressed on the FSF's page, even though it is not enumerated as one of the Four Freedoms: You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. So this raises the question: Why not just reference the FSF page? If you have quibbles with the FSF definition, you could submit patches to the FSF. Thanks -- Thomas
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On 2 June 2003 RMS wrote: I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is allowed), many of these cases have adequate workarounds, and the rest are real inconveniences that shouldn't be exaggerated. [...] It is fairly clear now that Debian and the FSF have different visions of software freedom and, therefore, different definitions of 'free'. The FSF is willing to characterize a document with invariant sections as free because this allows the FSF to use such sections to promote software freedom. Debian is not willing to do the same. Each organization will pursue its own vision of freedom even though their visions are different. Documents with invariant sections will go in non-free, but this shouldn't prevent Debian and the FSF from continuing to work together. -- Thomas Hood -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...
[Subject line shortened and cc: list cut down] On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 08:08, Hans Reiser wrote: I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits who are discomforted. I, for one, am not ungrateful for the contributions that Richard Stallman and you -- Hans Reiser -- have made. If, however, you are saying that Debian can only use your work on the condition that Debian becomes your mouthpiece, then I find that an unacceptable demand. No gratitude is due for software that comes with such conditions attached. Such a tainted offer should be politely declined. (By the way, I don't think that suits have a lot of influence over what happens in Debian. Debian developers are concerned, above all, with making a free operating system.) As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it. It is simply a matter of respect that is due the author. Respect is due; but it is up to Debian to decide how to show respect. The central question is this. If you are not satisfied by Debian's show of respect, what are you going to do about it? Consistently with freedom you can write to the Debian maintainer, complain on a mailing list, and so on. Fine. Hopefully an accommodation can be found. If, on the other hand, you assert a legal right to be shown respect in a way that you determine, then it becomes clear that your work is not DFSG-free and so not distributable by Debian. ReiserFS will be converting to the Gnu Free Doc License for its documentation. I look forward to the release of GPL V3 which will hopefully cover fair crediting of code as well as documentation, and stem this rising tide of plagiarism and political bowlderization by distros. I think it is altogether reasonable to require that the authors of software be credited. However, it must be up to Debian to decide how to give that credit. Bowlderization is the removal of content from works. The issue there is freedom of speech, not software freedom. Free speech is indeed important in all areas of life. Debian should not interfere with anyone's freedom of speech. Notwithstanding this, Debian's role is not that of soapbox for politically active programmers. So, while Debian might choose to distribute this or that text (unbowlderized!) as a service to its users, IMHO it should not under any circumstances allow itself to be *compelled* to distribute any text verbatim, no matter how attractive the software to which that text is attached. An exception is made for license texts. DFSG 4 determines how far Debian can go to accommodate an author's demand that his or her code be distributed unchanged. Yes, Debian will agree to distribute the original code, but only if the code can be patched for building. So, in the case of mkreiserfs: Yes, Debian will agree to distribute the original code with its excessively verbose credits message, but only if the message can be omitted from the running program. Out of respect for the authors, Debian should also include the message in the doc directory and under --version. But if I were the maintainer I wouldn't go any further than that. I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for their actors. I don't want the distro choosing how they are displayed because some distros do things like create boot time splash screens that tell about themselves instead of the authors, and so I have to say that their track record demonstrates that they cannot be trusted with that task. I think the authors should be the ones to decide how to list the credits. Any end user should of course be free to delete all the credits he wants to. It is becoming clearer that your software is not DFSG-free. -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 05:16, Branden Robinson wrote: * Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with, copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. [...] This means that one should not use the terminology or rhetoric of natural rights (such as the right to free speech, exercise of religion or freedom of conscience, security and privacy in one's person and effects, freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and so forth). Indeed, the relevant right is the right to free speech, which is the right to promulgate ideas, not to do the opposite. Thanks for the well written rant. -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
