Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:48 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A custom license is not something that we want to write, and especially not without serious thought and consideration between people who have a great deal of experience in writing licenses. Contributing to license proliferation by a license which is not compatible with the GPL and some other free software licenses is not something that we want to do. Thank you for saying that before I could get around to it, Don. I strongly agree. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [debian-ntp] Bug#328200: Problems with ntp
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 00:03 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: The maintainers should have a chance to clear up this question first. I'll have a look at it today. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [debian-ntp] Bug#328200: Problems with ntp
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 00:03 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: The maintainers should have a chance to clear up this question first. Ok, I've just been through the ntp source tree looking at all the copyright and license assertions. Executive summary is that there are indeed some problems, but it's not bad, and I believe it can be fixed with an upload that elides certain bits from the upstream sources and makes one small change in the source code. Here's what I found... The contents of the ElectricFence subdirectory are GPL, redundant with the Debian packages, and comletely unused. Since we have to elide the upstream source anyway, we could clip this tree, or we could leave it and add a suitable content to debian/copyright. The file util/ansi2knr.c is also GPL. I'm pretty sure it's unused, but an easy reference in debian/copyright would cover it. The contents of the adjtimed subdirectory and a few files scattered around the rest of the tree are copyright by Tai Jin, with a unique license that is clearly DFSG-ok. I suggest we add suitable content to debian/copyright taken from adjtimed/adjtimed.c. The arlib subdirectory contents are non-free, but only relevant if configure is called with the --with-arlib option that we don't use. I suggest this be elided from the upstream source for the Debian source package. The file html/build/hints/solaris-dosynctodr.html appears to have been taken from a sun.com web page complete with links to a license assertion on Sun web content that I don't even want to read. We should remove this file from our source package. The files in html/pic include a couple of small images of products that I presume came from manufacturer web sites, which are used to illustrate the documentation. No explicit assertions of copyright or license. I believe this is fair use, but if not they could be replaced with an icon or something and nothing important would be lost. The file include/global.h has an RSA copyright assertion with all rights reserved and no other grant. However, the files that include it clearly came from the rsaref2.0 package, which has a BSD-like license with advertising clause. I believe this header file also was part of that package and therefore covered by the same RSA license terms. Therefore, I suggest the copyright and license terms from libntp/md5c.c should be added to debian/copyright to cover all inclusions from rsaref2.0. There are several files that are BSD with advertising clause, including libntp/memmove.c, libntp/mktime.c, libntp/random.c, libntp/strerror.c, libntp/strstr.c, ntpd/refclock_jupiter.c, and ntpd/refclock_mx4200.c. These should be referenced in debian/copyright. There are several files that are BSD-like with advertising clause (several different copyright holders), including libntp/md5c.c (mentioned above), libntp/ntp_rfc2553.c, ntpd/refclock_jjy.c, ntpd/refclock/palisade.c, ntpd/refclock_ripencc.c, ntpd/refclock_ulink.c, scripts/ntpsweep.in, and all of the sntp subdir (which I believe is unused). These should also be referenced in debian/copyright. The file libntp/ranny.c is non-free, with a unique copyright and license assertion: /* * Random number generator is: * * Copyright 1988 by Rayan S. Zachariassen, all rights reserved. * This will be free software, but only when it is finished. * * Used in ntp by permission of the author. If copyright is * annoying to you, read no further. Instead, look up the reference, * write me an equivalent to this and send it back to me. */ /* * Random number generator; see Knuth Vol 2. 2nd ed. p.27 * (section 3.2.2) */ There is exactly one use of the ranp2() function defined in this file, which appears in ntpd/ntp_peer.c. I don't have Knuth nearby, but staring at the source, this looks like a pseudo-randum generator that as called is returning an unsigned long containing a random number in the bottom 16 bits. Since all it is being used for is to initialize an association ID, I don't see why we couldn't replace the call to init_random() in ntp/ntpd.c with a call to srand(time()), and then replace ranp2(16) in ntpd/ntp_peer.c with rand() 0x? That would allow us to elide libntp/ranny.c and the references to it in libntp/Makefile* from our source package, which is probably easier than finding the author and asking him to relicense this bit. That's it. The rest looks fine to me. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes: 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQE/RTB4ZKfAp/LPAagRAn+DAJwPUA4uY42sE9Qqq0kaOM9XoIhWgACfX8EB Uk3hEv12UQyuGwKOv7EXSBQ= =vbJu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
subscribe
DNSsafe license
I maintain the BIND package for Debian. The new 8.2 version of BIND has been released, and one of the significant new features is the DNS security system. This functionality depends on DNSsafe, which is code licensed by RSA Data Security to the Internet Software Consortium for use with BIND, clearly with the intent that it be broadly deployed and used. I've looked at the license, and I think it's ok. However, I'm not an expert on licenses like this, and I would appreciate review of the terms by the debian-legal community, to confirm or deny complicance of this license with the DFSG before I upload BIND 8.2 packages to main. Bdale DNSSAFE LICENSE TERMS This BIND software includes the DNSsafe software from RSA Data Security, Inc., which is copyrighted software that can only be distributed under the terms of this license agreement. The DNSsafe software cannot be used or distributed separately from the BIND software. You only have the right to use it or distribute it as a bundled, integrated product. The DNSsafe software can ONLY be used to provide authentication for resource records in the Domain Name System, as specified in RFC 2065 and successors. You cannot modify the BIND software to use the DNSsafe software for other purposes, or to make its cryptographic functions available to end-users for other uses. If you modify the DNSsafe software itself, you cannot modify its documented API, and you must grant RSA Data Security the right to use, modify, and distribute your modifications, including the right to use any patents or other intellectual property that your modifications depend upon. You must not remove, alter, or destroy any of RSA's copyright notices or license information. When distributing the software to the Federal Government, it must be licensed to them as commercial computer software protected under 48 CFR 12.212 of the FAR, or 48 CFR 227.7202.1 of the DFARS. You must not violate United States export control laws by distributing the DNSsafe software or information about it, when such distribution is prohibited by law. THE DNSSAFE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY WHATSOEVER. RSA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT, CORRECT, UPDATE OR MAINTAIN THE RSA SOFTWARE. RSA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. If you desire to use DNSsafe in ways that these terms do not permit, please contact RSA Data Security, Inc., 100 Marine Parkway, Redwood City, California 94065, USA, to discuss alternate licensing arrangements.
Re: DNSsafe license
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: I'm afraid this is definitely non-free. It forbids distribution of modified versions on several counts: Be patient with me. I don't see the problem, at least not yet. I wouldn't have brought the license to debian-legal if I thought it were beyond question, but some discussion will be required to convince me of your assertions. The DNSsafe software cannot be used or distributed separately from the BIND software. You only have the right to use it or distribute it as a bundled, integrated product. Which section of the DFSG does this violate? It prevents me from packaging things such that the DNSsafe library is a separate entity from BIND, clearly. It means that someone else can't borrow the DNSsafe library from BIND without negotiating a different license with RSA. However, I fail to see how this restricts distribution of modified versions of BIND in any way. The DNSsafe software can ONLY be used to provide authentication for resource records in the Domain Name System, as specified in RFC 2065 and successors. You cannot modify the BIND software to use the DNSsafe software for other purposes, or to make its cryptographic functions available to end-users for other uses. This is unfriendly to the free software community at large, to the extent that someone might want to use the DNSsafe code for some non-DNS purpose which this license would not cover, forcing them to negotiate a different license with RSA. But again, I don't see how this violates the DFSG... or how it in any way prevents distribution of BIND. If you modify the DNSsafe software itself, you cannot modify its documented API, [...] This one is the most problematic point for me. I'd like the API to be as free as the software, but I can't see how this violates the DFSG. We have lots of cases where free software implements one or the other side of a proprietary API, after all. Bdale
