Re: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines
On 04/30/2018 02:28 AM, Martin Hanson wrote: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806 > Maybe I have misunderstood the issue completely, but I do have some > experience with legal issues and AFAIK, there IS a problem here. Effective 25 May 2018 it _might_ be a GDPR violation, but that is probably the closest law (^1) that applies. Furthermore, it would be Google, not Debian that is in violation. If you claiming that the _Oracle v Google_ Appellate Court ruling applies, that is about a different set of circumstances. Furthermore, that case hasn't been settled, and the previous court decision isn't necessarily rendered null and void,, because the first time through was about a different set of legal circumstances, than the second time through. ### As a practical matter, are there any globally available DNS servers, whose formal Terms and Conditions of Service are DFSG compliant? ^1: The Philippine privacy statute, might apply, but it is restricted to The Philippines, and, furthermore, is usually enforced on "not a friend of the state" status. Besides which, The Philippines can't afford to piss off a major American corporation, whilst most European countries can almost afford to do so. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. jonathon
Re: License of the GPL license
On 04/16/2018 08:50 AM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > "Changing is not allowed" is in conflict with DFSG #3. Has this thing ever > been discussed? I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. It is nothing more than my understanding, which might be wrong. Furthermore, the same basic legal theory applies regardless of the specific license. The license is not distributed under the license it describes. Rather, it is distributed under standard copyright, with all the ARR implications that that carries. There are technical, legal questions (^1) as to whether or not licenses are, in and of themselves copyrightable. AFAIK, thus far, no license creator has sued for copyright infringement, because another license was based on their license. This is a legal quagmire that nobody wants to get into, because regardless of who wins, everybody loses, and will pay far more than they currently pay. This loss is both short-term, and long-term in duration. If you modify the text, you have to change the name of the document. Incrementing the number in the name is not enough of a change. You can't call it _GNU GPL 5.x_, but you can call it _My Public License 5.x_. ^1: Licenses are either legal boiler-plate, or terms of art, and hence lack the creativity required to qualify for copyright protection. jonathon
Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
On 03/20/2018 08:16 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: >>> Positions and movement parameters of celestial bodies, presented in >> their natural form (to keep the use of JPL-DE data as example) are bare >> >> The creativity here is: >> * Which bodies are included; >> * How frequently are the co-ordinates listed - hourly, daily, weekly, >> monthly, annually, etc.; >> * What unit of measurement is used for those co-ordinates; >> * What is the starting point of the listings; >> * What is the ending point of the listing; > > This is all not artificially selected. One hundred percent of it, is an artificial selection. If you go back to the Feist ruling, had the original list been just odd phone numbers, or just rural box numbers,the decision would have gone the other way, because that would have met the "creativity" requirement. It was only because everything was gulped down, that the decision went the way it did. For an ephemeris, the seven points needed to calculate the position of a body, are facts. Anything more than that involves an element of creativity. Going back to my first point: "Which bodies are included", astrologers have a choice of roughly 1,000 planets which orbit the sun, to choose from. This is in addition to roughly 1,000,000 asteroids, Kepler Objects, comets, and other assorted things that either explicitly or implicitly orbit the sun, or give the appearance of so doing. Creativity choice # 1: Which objects to include. That you have never heard of the planet Vulcan, not to be confused with either the planet Vulkan nor with the planet Vulcanus, both of which have different, dissimilar orbits around the Sol, the star that the planet Earth orbits, and none of which are to be confused with either planetoids, asteroids, Kepler Objects, or minor planets with similar names, does not mean that the exclusion is not a creative choice. > Astrolabe dismissed the lawsuit, so no court decision was made. In which > way does this imply that Astrolabe could claim copyright? a) Had the EFF not taken the defendant's case pro bona, Astrolabe would probably have won their lawsuit; b) With a specific license attached to the content, one can be fairly confident that one won't be sued for a copyright violation, if one adheres to the license. Without a license attached to the content, the only safe assumption is that the content is ARR, and one needs to both pay royalties, and obtain _written_ permission to use the content. That automatically make the content in question non-free, and against the Debian Social Contract. > I don't say it is "public domain". I state that is is not copyrighted. > That is not the same. Technically, you are correct. "Public Domain" and "not copyrighted" are two different things. Do you really want to go down the road of "it is not copyrighted", whilst excluding it from the realm of "Public Domain"? If so, then you have demonstrated precisely why the content in question can not be included in either Debian Free, or in Debian Non-Free. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. jonathon
Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
On 03/20/2018 08:45 AM, Ole Streicher wrote: > The exception used here is that facts are not copyrightable. US copyright law has a creativity requirement. Just how much "creativity" is required is ambiguous. European copyright law typically has a "seat of the brow" component, which means under European Copyright law, it would copyright. (That EU directive doesn't throw out copyright on "sweat of the brow" grounds.) > Positions and movement parameters of celestial bodies, presented in their natural form (to keep the use of JPL-DE data as example) are bare The creativity here is: * Which bodies are included; * How frequently are the co-ordinates listed - hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, annually, etc.; * What unit of measurement is used for those co-ordinates; * What is the starting point of the listings; * What is the ending point of the listing; > A (US) court decision that compilations of facts requires a minimum of > originality to be copyrighted (in that case it was a telephone book; a > time-sorted list of planet positions is the same). Astrolabe, Inc. v Arthur David Olson and Paul Eggert Massachusetts District Court 1:2011cv11725 implies that a case to the contrary can be made. > Is this enough material to claim an exception? Nope. Still doesn't cover those judicial domains in which "public domain" is not a legally recognised thing. What is needed is a specific license for the JPL Planetary Ephemeris, that is congruent with the Debian Social Contract. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. jonathon
Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
On 03/01/2018 10:34 AM, Ole Streicher wrote: > Source code is an entity, but observation is an activity, so it cannot be > source code. technically, how the observation is recorded is the source code. But without that observation, there is no source code. jonathon
Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
On 02/28/2018 12:17 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: > Again, as shown here: this license covers *software*, not *data*. As far as copyright law is concerned, there is no difference between data and software. For some programming languages, there is no difference between data and code. > Data is fundamentally different from software: for example, there is no > "source code" for DE405. The source code for the ephemeris is physical observations of the stars, planets, and other bodies in it. jonathon
Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
On 02/28/2018 11:42 AM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >>> Where can I find the text of the NOSA v2.0 ? >> but the attachment containing the text was scrubbed. > Here it is: Thanks. jonathon
Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
On 02/27/2018 10:39 PM, Francesco Poli wrote: > Where can I find the text of the NOSA v2.0 ? I was going to suggest https://web.archive.org/web/20150923151504/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/000610.html but the attachment containing the text was scrubbed. NASA Open Source Agreement 2.0 I can find copies of NOSA 1.3. (In theory NOSA 1.3 is neither Free (FSF) nor Open (OSI), but the latter, for some bizarre reason, lists it as open.) jonathon
Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
On 02/27/2018 09:54 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > That conflict needs to be resolved, IMO. Do they intend to grant all the > DFSG freedoms to the work's recipient, or not? My recommendation is to go back to NASA, asking if this will be relicenced under NOSO 2.0, if/when OSI states that that license is OSI compliant. It has been at least four years, and maybe even five, since NASA submitted that license. I doubt anybody expected approval to take so long, especially since NASA appears to not know what the issues triggering the denial are. When that license was first submitted, my impression was that NASA, along with sub-contractors, and organisations they work with, were going to do a wholesale license migration, from the hodgepodge they currently utilise, to NOSO 2.0, unless otherwise prohibited by law, from so doing. jonathon
Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
On 02/25/2018 09:48 PM, Roberto wrote: > In Spain, ... the "public domain" concept doesn't even exist Spain is not the only country to have no concept of "public domain". Which is precisely why one needs to how the JPL Planetary Ephemeris is licensed. jonathon
Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org
On 21/01/2016 21:49, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > a broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from > scratch: What problem are you trying with this license, that other licenses don't solve? > 3. It is your obligation that the changed version of your sources will > be available to the public for free. Discrimination against fields of endeavour. > 5. When applying changes to the source code you need to leave your name, > your email address and the date of your modifications so that other > people may contact you. Fails the Desert Island Test jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Is an AGPL2 possible?
hi, the AGPL3 is the GPL3 with an additional clause. is there some reason why an AGPL2 wouldn't be possible? the AGPL3 is nice, but isn't compatible with GPLv2 only code, so an AGPL2 would be usable in places the AGPL3 can't be. if an AGPL2-like license would be possible, how hard would it be to have it added to the debian approved free license list? with thanks jonathon
r-cran-afex package, violates the GPL?
hi, i've just packaged and submitted the r-cran-afex package, and it has been accepted https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=797819 but now i'm wondering if it doesn't violate the GPL2. it is released under GPL3+, but it has dependencies which are GPL2 r-cran-afex and its dependencies are R packages, which run under the R interpreter. r-cran-afex calls functions provided by its dependencies. does this constitute a violation of the GPL2? with thanks jonathon -- JASP - A Fresh Way to Do Statistics http://jasp-stats.org/ -- How happy is he born and taught, That serveth not another's will; Whose armour is his honest thought, And simple truth his utmost skill This man is freed from servile bands Of hope to rise, or fear to fall: Lord of himself, though not of lands, And, having nothing, yet hath all. -- Sir Henry Wotton
Re: r-cran-afex package, violates the GPL?
hi ian,
On 30/09/2015 2:58 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathon Love writes ("r-cran-afex package, violates the GPL?"):
>> i've just packaged and submitted the r-cran-afex package, and it has
>> been accepted
>>
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=797819
>>
>> but now i'm wondering if it doesn't violate the GPL2.
>>
>> it is released under GPL3+, but it has dependencies which are GPL2
>
> Which dependencies ? Do you mean `GPL2+' or `GPL2-only' ?
r-cran-afex has the following GPL2-only dependencies:
- r-cran-stringr
- r-cran-coin
- r-cran-lsmeans
with thanks
jonathon
--
JASP - A Fresh Way to Do Statistics
http://jasp-stats.org/
--
How happy is he born and taught,
That serveth not another's will;
Whose armour is his honest thought,
And simple truth his utmost skill
This man is freed from servile bands
Of hope to rise, or fear to fall:
Lord of himself, though not of lands,
And, having nothing, yet hath all.
-- Sir Henry Wotton
Re: Status of uw-prism packaging for Debian
On 8/1/2014 1:56 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: What do you think? From http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-02-02/html/98-2498.htm and http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm369431.html I can't tell if 510(k) clearance would be required, or not. That is why you need to talk to lawyers that know what the FDA means, when it says something. ### A decade ago, I created a spreadsheet that determines the optimal nutritional intake for an individual, given certain conditions. About seven years ago, the legal advice I was given was: It can be distributed, with a number of explicitly stated disclaimers, but even so, distribution might run afoul of other regulations of other Federal, State, or local agencies, including the FDA. The only way to ensure that it is not being distributed in violation of FDA regulations, would be to submit it to the FDA, for certification. jonathon -- eMail with a precedence of other than bulk, list, or junk is forwarded to Dve Null, unread. eMail with those precedences might, but probably will not be read. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e81aca.2040...@gmail.com
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24/03/12 07:26, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Why ask? I fail to see why I should assume http://freetranslation.mobi/ are breaking the copyright law or any agreement they have with any subcontractors / suppliers of services. You'd have to phrase the question slightly differently. I assume they are a legal service until proven otherwise, and even if they are breaking the law or any agreements with suppliers, I fail to see how that would be a problem for us. Historically, the translation service has owned the copyright, and other intellectual property rights, to the content that is translated, not the individual/organization that supplied the content to be translated. This is enforceable by being part of the contract/EULA that one has with the translation service. I don't know what the current US case law is. :( Back in the mid-nineties, there were several court cases where translation services were granted ownership (including, but not limited to copyright) of the data generated by machine translation. I just realized that freetranslate.mobi is based out of the Seychelles. OTOH, it uses servers in the United States. Third, what should we ask them? Ask them specifically for copies of contracts between them, and any third parties that they subcontract the translations to. This includes, but is not limited to services such as Babelfish, Google Translate, and Bing Translate. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. jonathon * Unknown - detected * English * English javascript:void(0); Unable to detect language of selected text. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPbaieAAoJEFD/SeNs/huZIIkIAIh4jWgBZOtNkkRTe5uK1U8o 8qF6hlLFAPxlVaj3twdbPetDWE4yEhm5/mJgmerKh6EX4Y+7LgozhFWM8PXuCnpB r+REi1icUMfICtEpQ2ZHi7vNNojzC8zl/HwLoEkDtUKI/XkIOdnRguYaB9ZUOPPG cUt5CixiVWAJ0BQscI/g02Pn6bG4ERVoFFFcwOwuk+EAHoMUAfS/AXjmxPtleDEa jxOXSEffW23nHDDe5sb1Qpv4MPUCxYSzTu0Si3BVNfPynjMZ3lBhOyB2pwwB0ddt y3QzhEZ/Sa+YE/2Hyv+yUF7fyKIhstrikKK2lq1G8iTY4u7iAjob+971KzGu0Xg= =8NSk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f6da8ab.3070...@gmail.com
Re: XNAT license terms... any chance for main?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/06/2011 01:26, PJ Weisberg wrote: 4. The software has been designed for research purposes only and has not been approved for clinical use. It has not been reviewed or approved by the Food and Drug Administration or by any other agency. You acknowledge and agree that clinical applications are neither recommended nor advised. 5. You are responsible for purchasing any external software that may be required for the proper running of this software. You also agree that you are solely responsible for informing your sublicensees, including without limitation your end-users, of their obligations to secure any such required permissions. You further agree that you are solely responsible for determining and divulging the viral nature of any code included in the software. I've seen plenty of software in Debian with a clause similar to #4, usually phrased something like $foo is distributed in the hope that Did you really mean clause #4, or was it a typo for clause # 5? The rest of your response implies that the 4 was a typo. Clause 4 probably is legally required, but is it still within the scope of Libre software? jonathon - -- All emails sent to this with email address with a precedence other than bulk, or list, are forwarded to Dave Null, unread. * English - detected * English * English javascript:void(0); # being -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN7V8iAAoJEDqP6lg9AbnKPasH/1Q2BMAF+wCwkZDdsbf75mj7 QeuB4ox5Sp8EmRepfhE7O2Yg7NPm5qGYY9Nay5D7B17cGDW7/+l3o+EEQIFcnNkp uy14N3qMh4kBr5mNqDJ21zjX/hoSu2b+hOkBHh1dVI73ggqnsFiS65qXCApKWJ1f ytm52HwgLSmiFv+IiRsD1PA7a3/IXTRAdqs2LYPT6S76zriVlmHpI63CyLFRXlxx S6xS3wajE/54VDX/wPxawQOWrjaQE3qVx3fZsOa8HDpb+uHPuaDVkRadANhgsJ9j 9J7FCAdBcl6kCn615jgpLtYeql+gd/sB+9c0hfcXlnVg2422ySmLeyRitIyMt38= =1o18 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ded5f28.5040...@gmail.com
Re: default CC license version number is always latest?
On 01/18/2011 08:40 AM, Ricardo Mones wrote: I've found a theme which states it's licensed 'Creative Commons by-nc-sa'. My question is whether is possible assume the version of the license or I wouldn't, because there are versions and localizations of the CC-BY-SA-NC license that are incompatible with other versions of the CC-BY-SA-NC license. More to the point, because of that incompatibility, my position is that if neither the specific localization, nor specific version of the CC-BY-SA-NC license are given, the the work is to be treated as if it was _All Rights Reserved_. jonathon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d365b46.9040...@gmail.com
Re: What kind of copyright/license statement is required here?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 17:11, Ben Finney wrote: For works in a form that don't have a clear place to put such a copyright header (e.g. an audio recording, or a formatted data file), the copyright information in a separate file approach makes more sense; but the maintenance and aggregation burden is not lessened in any degree. Audio formats, video formats, and graphic formats do have a clear place for Dublin Meta Core Data to be added. I will grant that the overwhelming majority of programs for those formats, provide users with the ability to add that metadata. xan jonathon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
