Re: License issue with freeswan (Eric Young's libdes)
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 13:23:28 +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: Freeswan upstream developers are currently thinking of switch to openssl. I already pointed out to them that this might need a change in their own (GPL) license statement so that linking to openssl is explicitly allowed. Perhaps you can ask them to consider using GNUTLS (www.gnutls.org) rather than OpenSSL? GNUTLS's license (mostly LGPL, some GPL; see libgnutls5-dev for details), unlike OpenSSL's, is GPL-compatible. Several packages in Debian that used to use OpenSSL have already switched to GNUTLS (mutt and gnome-VFS IIRC). GNUTLS builds on libgcrypt which includes a DES implementation; it should not be too difficult to have FreeS/WAN use gcrypt's DES implementation rather than libdes's; that should solve the licensing issues for now. HTH, Ray -- GRub[B]eR JHM, jij bent echt nerd :)) GRub[B]eR maar wel een goeie :) GRub[B]eR Soort van programmerende furby Gezien op #cistron
Re: Are software patents legal in .nl?
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 00:38:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Are software patents legal in .nl? IANAL, but AFAIK the answer is Yes, or at least Effectively yes. The Netherlands are a member of the European Union which is working on regulations that explicitly allow software patents (albeit under tighter rules than the US, allegedly). In the meantime, the European Patent Office has been issueing software patents in violation of current regulations; see http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/index.en.html http://www.recht.nl/ie/dossiers/software/ collects some articles and publications (in Dutch or English) pertaining to legal aspects of software in the Netherlands. One of them is De juridische en economische aspecten van het software-octrooi [The legal and economic aspects of the software patent] from the Ministery for Economic Affairs, december 2001. Quoting and translating (quick'n'dirty) from 3.1.6 Samenvatting which summarizes the legal situation: :De bovenstaande vergelijking laat zien dat zowel in Nederland, Europa (EOB) :als de VS octrooiering van softwaregerelateerde uitvindingen mogelijk is. :Daarbij lijkt de Amerikaanse rechter de ruimste toelatingscriteria te :hanteren. Wanneer een computerprogramma een bruikbaar en concreet resultaat :oplevert (en nieuw en inventief is), komt het in beginsel voor bescherming :in aanmerking. The previous comparison show that in the Netherlands, Europe (EPO) and in the USA software related inventions are patentable. In this, American judges appear to use the broadest cirteria for admissability. When a computer progrem produces a useful and concrete result (and is new and innovative), it may in principle be protectable [through a patent]. :De Nederlandse rechtspraak van Octrooiraad komt in wezen op hetzelfde :resultaat uit, omdat de bewerking van gegevens beschouwd wordt als het :aanbrengen van een verandering in de natuur. Dutch jurisprudence from the Patent Office essentially has the same result, as the tooling of data is regarded as bringing about a change in nature. HTH, Ray -- I've just been spammed by gardening-online.co.uk - now i'm wondering if Agent Orange is licensed for use against spammers? Tanuki the Raccoon-dog in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenSSL-linked exim
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 16:19:48 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Exim is GPL, so the author currently does not allow the distribution of binaries which also contain OpenSSL code. Quoting the NOTICE file from the Exim 3.36 source: :Copyright (c) 1999 University of Cambridge : :This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it :under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free :Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) :any later version. : :In addition, for the avoidance of any doubt, permission is granted to link :this program with OpenSSL or any other library package. This seems to be intended as the kind of exception statement Debian needs in order to be able to include OpenSSL-linked exim binaries (or OpenLDAP-linked-against-OpenSSL exim binaries) in its main archive, although people on debian-legal would probably point out that this doesn't spell out permission to redistribute the result of such linking. Philip, if I recall correctly, previous discussions on debian-legal have resulted in a recommended phrasing for such an exception statement (unfortunately, I can't seem to find a link for it at the moment); would you please consider getting the NOTICE updated along the lines of that phrasing so as to make it clear that redistribution of OpenSSL-linked exim binaries is allowed? Ray -- Perhaps they spent some of the time writing the patent application. That task was surely harder than thinking of the technique. RMS on Amazon's 1-Click(R) patent, http://linuxtoday.com/story.php3?sn=13652
Re: Bug#156503: microsoft changed its policy, msttcorefonts broken
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:12:46 -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote: After consulting with debian-legal, I emailed Bigelow and Holmes tonight to ask them to reconsider the license they have chosen so that they can be included in debian. If anyone is interested, I can post that email here. You may want to send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Cc that address on further correspondence, so it ends up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The intention of this list is to act as a grab-bag for Debian related correspondence such as contacting upstream authors about licenses, bugs etc. or discussing the project with others where it might be useful to have the discussion archived somewhere. . This is archived on the development machine and only developers have access to it. Moderated: No Subscription: developers only - http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe). Ray -- The proper place for a CAPSLOCK key is in a different hemisphere from you. Tom Christiansen in Interface Zen, http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/30/0954216
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 13:24:31 +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if there is a conflict for debian to ship both readline and firebird together. I am afraid you're violating GPL this way. It doesn't matter if you distribute this lib or not. The fact is that you use lib's headers and use lib itself (while compiling and then linking the program). The keyword here is _use_. The GPL doesn't place restrictions on use, only on redistribution. I'm fairly certain that one of the texts at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ goes into this in detail. You could say so if you could compile FireBird having NO libreadline on disk (for ex. with some stub lib only and own headers). But you can't (ATM). There is only a problem if you redistribute the resulting binary. (Of course, a program that cannot be distributed in binary form is not particularly useful from Debian's perspective) Even then (if you could) - the user using such FireBird would be violating GPL, as he would effectively link GPL-incompatible program to GPLed library (he won't be able and/or will not want to use empty, stub lib). Linking GPL-incompatibly licensed code against GPLed code is not a violation of the GPL. Distributing the result is. Ray -- The problem with the global village is all the global village idiots. Paul Ginsparg
Re: linux gpl question
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that NeXTStep distributed only the object files It's in Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism by RMS, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the GPL's requirements. But our lawyer said that this would not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made the Objective C front end free software. Ray -- If we put in English phrases, that makes it readable. That's COBOL. Larry Wall on common fallacies of language design -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Can GPLed programs use Heimdal?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:05:33 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:21:04AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: The Heimdal implementation links against libssl in order to get its crypto. How does this effect GPLed applications? Note that the applications do not normally call any routines from libssl; they only call Heimdal routines indirectly. Currently, however, it's my impression that indirect linking against libssl is as prohibited as direct linking against libssl. I agree. Thus, for GPLed applications using Heimdal linked against OpenSSL an explicit exception statement by their copyright holders allowing linking against OpenSSL is needed. Another approach, which involves more work initially, but does away with needing GPL exception statements for every Heimdal-using GPLed application, would be to port Heimdal to a GPL-compatibly-licensed crypto library like GnuTLS, gcrypt or beecrypt. Ray -- POPULATION EXPLOSION Unique in human experience, an event which happened yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: Adpcm code--is this licence free?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:27:58 -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: It was quite obvious to me that they intended the first sense. As a side note, CWI (the Mathematisch Centrum) have prior experience in free software related licensing issues as e.g. Python was originally developed there. One option is to ask them to clarify the without fee in a way similar to what the Artistic license does: Freely Available means that no fee is charged for the item itself, though there may be fees involved in handling the item. It also means that recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they received it. Ray -- POPULATION EXPLOSION Unique in human experience, an event which happened yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: Is this patch OK for main?
[I'm probably repeating myself, but this is for the benefit of debian-legal readers and may help to shorten discussion] On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 16:10:39 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: could someone please tell me if this patch: - contains any code with legal problems (e.g. patents)? Not that I'm aware of. - forces the package to go to non-US? It doesn't. It essentially has two parts - hooks to crypto/code to deal with passphrases entered on terminals. These do not force a package to go to non-US. There's precedent in e.g. mutt, whose mutt-i package (containing hooks to PGP/GPG) was merged into the main mutt package after a similar discussion quite some time ago. - an implementation of a one-way hash (RIPE-MD 160). It's a one-way hash, not a cipher; as such there is no US export issue that I'm aware of. As for precedents, there's also Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r2 which includes an earlier version of this patch (i.e, without this patch, our next release will be incompatible with the current one as reported in e.g. #36939), and there's the issue that if there were a problem, there'd be a problem with having the diff posted to a mailing list hosted in the US and archived on webservers hosted in the US. Ray -- LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto- destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: Interbase Licence
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 22:45:07 +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: Is this free? Who will package it? http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0003/msg00451.html HTH, Ray -- LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto- destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: Fwd: Re: Liscencing Issue - Taking Action
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:44:07 +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: I think parts of the Debian+KDE discussion on the KDE Maillist will be interesting for you too. Quite frankly, I doubt it - I see numerous misunderstandings that have been covered many times already. On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, did mosfet mean: Their position is not even we kde core developers that write all our own original code can link to Qt with an unmodified GPL. The original author of a piece of code is the copyright holder, and is therefore not bound by whatever license she chooses to license it under. For example, as the author of a GPLed program, I can distribute binaries of it without providing sources, link it against Qt or XForms etc. [please someone forward this to debian] To clearify some things: Linking to Qt is no violation of the GPL! That's right. Linking is a /use/ of the software, and the GPL specifically doesn't cover use. The issue was and still is that redistribution of binaries of GPL-ed code linked against Qt by others than the authors of said GPL-ed code (for example the Debian project) is a violation of the GPL. Qt is a Library, that means it is intentionally used by the program. As I know common practice the library does not modify the program but vice versa. Otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to link any GPL program to the LGPL'ed glibc or any other libc running on any sytem where GNU software is used. Bad example, for two reasons: the LGPL explicitly allows relicensing as GPL (which the QPL or Qt1 license don't), and the GPL has specific exemptions for major system components (like libc), which Qt isn't. In any law I know about (at least German ones) there exists a concept called intention. If a programmer writes a program that only runs while certain libraries are present it can legally be assumed that it is his intention to link the program against the library. You don't need written permission, the facts speak for themselves. So where's the harm in stating the obvious then? AFAIK KDE still includes GPL-ed code written by third parties where there is no indication that they intended to allow their code to be linked against Qt. Qt is nothing else than any kind of libc or compiler internal precompiled functions (so called built-ins, as new/delete for C++). The GPL makes a difference for major components, like libc and libstdc++. It is debatable if e.g. the X Window System libraries, let alone Qt, can be considered major components in this sense. Ray -- ART A friend of mine in Tulsa, Okla., when I was about eleven years old. I'd be interested to hear from him. There are so many pseudos around taking his name in vain. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: When will KDE and Debian get together?
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 08:53:06 -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote: However, if you search the packages list on the official Debian web site, Qt1 is there large as life in the non-free section True. The license terms on Qt1 allow for us to distribute binaries; they do not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines, so such binaries are distributed in the non-free section. while KDE is not to be seen at all. As its license does not allow for us to distribute KDE binaries. It would be possible for us to distribute KDE in source form, but I suspect this would not change things for many users. I still think this is an ironic situation. I won't deny there's an irony to it. Because there have been no fundamental changes in the situation. After analysis of KDE's and Qt's licensing terms (both the non-free Qt1 licensing terms and the free QPL), the Debian project has concluded it cannot legally distribute KDE binaries. Every other distribution has concluded that they can. I'm not so sure. I think a more truthful interpretation of their inclusion of KDE interpretation is that they concluded that their chances of suffering legal action as a result of their inclusion were negligable. Other distributions are more lenient in adhering by / interpreting license terms and patents; see for example the number of distributions including pine, Netscape, GIF producing software, gated, qmail and presumably in the not too distant future, Motif. That is their right, as their motivation(s) for producing GNU/Linux distributions are different from Debian's. Are you *positive* the rigid stance in the KDE case here is because of high moral principles or is there an element of revenge here going back to the old flame wars? I'm not denying few in the Debian project look favourably on KDE or Troll Tech, but the issue is about Debian's principles, layed down as the Debian Free Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). The KDE case is hardly the only one where Debian takes a strong stand on licensing. I ask this admittedly loaded question because I am concerned that Debian is shooting itself in the foot over this issue. The Debian project is about building the best possible free operating environment, it is not about scoring in the hit parade of Linux distributions. The more people that use it, the merrier, but that's not at the heart of the project. The project is succesful because its participants all agree on this goal. Debian has been willing to compromise on many fronts by allowing lots of non-free software (such as Qt1) to be officially listed on their web site. Personally, I'd much rather have the packages search work on main only by default. We've tried to cooperate with KDE and Troll to get the license issue fixed, by showing numerous options. In particular Joseph Carter has worked long hours under difficult circumstances and long flamewars to get the issue fixed by getting Troll Tech to use good licensing terms for Qt2. He has gotten very far with this, for which I respect him a lot, but regrettably Troll Tech decided not to take the final step and make the QPL GPL-compatible. The KDE project has not even been willing to compromise by admitting that there is a problem, and fixing it, even though the fix consists of a mere two-line addition (or if you prefer, clarification) to KDE's license. This is regrettable. As a project founded on respect for authors licensing terms, we have no option than respecting KDE's licensing terms by not distributing KDE binaries. The philosophy of Debian as a project builds on that of the GNU project in many ways. The GNU project was started because RMS was willing to stand by his principles by not compromising and signing an NDA. While his uncompromising stand may not have made him and his project popular with many, it has provided us with a solid foundation to build on. We choose to maintain that solidity. If others like Corel and Stormix feel they need to build something on top of it that is less solid, that is their right, and we try to make that possible for them, but it is in no way a motivation for us to abandon the principles our project is founded on. IANAL, but I suspect this is not clear-cut and instead is a legal grey area Many issues surrounding free software licensing are. For example, the GPL has never been tested in court. Still, in those cases the FSF perceived its license terms to be violated, the violators (e.g. NeXt and the ncftp author) have backed down and complied with the FSF's request, suggesting that the GPL is a strong license, likely to be held up in court. Debian's interpretation of the GPL in the case of KDE is along the lines of the FSF, which, until a court will interpret the GPL, is the the entity most likely to offer a proper interpretation of the GPL. Ray -- Cyberspace, a final frontier. These are the voyages of my messages, on a lightspeed mission to explore strange new systems and to boldly go
Open Source Motif
TOG have released Motif under an Open Source license which isn't. (See also /. coverage at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/15/1229207 ) Quoting http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/: Open Source programs mean software for which the source code is available without confidential or trade secret restrictions and for which the source code and object code are available for distribution without license charges. But on http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/ they do link to the OSD which has the real definition of Open Source. The rights granted under this license are limited solely to distribution and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for operating systems which are themselves Open Source programs Which puts it in the same category as Qt v1: not DFSG-free, free or Open Source. Someone feel like getting them to change their license or their terminology? Ray -- Obsig: developing a new sig
Re: mutt no longer in non-us?
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 14:36:56 -0800, Joey Hess wrote: The Debian mutt package also continues to ignore the wishes of mutt's upstream authors, who do belive mutt contains crypto hooks, and who only make the version available from outside the US for that reason. Mutt's current primary upstream developer, Thomas Roessler, is in .de; Michael Elkins (mutt's original author, based in .us) is no longer an active developer. Thomas is a Debian user; I have seen no indication he's against the current mutt in main. Ray -- Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.
Re: MMIX license OK for main?
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 21:37:13 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: There's got to be someone at Stanford who can get to him. See http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html for contact details. Ray -- Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 21:04:08 -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. Barf with a spoon. Is that so? Yes. See e.g. perlfaq(1p). Non-modification is defensible in the case of standards, and arguments have been made that writings are different than software, but this issue definitely needs to be addressed in full. Ray -- RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may not be a better one than the one the blocks live in but it'll be a sight more vivid. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: pptp, ppp with Microsoft encryption
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 10:34:30 +, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: Is RC4 encryption a problem with the US export laws ? I suspect so. It may depend on the bitsize (IIRC, regular netscape uses 40-bit RC4), but even for the case of an allowed bitsize, an export license might be required. What about MD4 (it is used as well with mppe and mschap codes) ? MD* are message digests, aka secure hash functions. As such, they don't perform encryption (though there are ways to build ciphers from them). The additional files 'rc4.h' and 'rc4_enc.c' that are needed for patching the kernel ppp part have this license and I do not know if they qualify as DFSG-free software: It looks like they're from SSLeay/OpenSSL, which are DFSG-free. The license is not GPL-compatible though, so they cannot be incorporated into the kernel. A solution would be to make them into loadable kernel modules or coordinate with the www.kerneli.org folks and find GPL-compatible RC4 code somewhere. HTH, Ray -- Obsig: developing a new sig
Re: Lizard / Debian
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:46:04 +0200, Thomas Schoepf wrote: Personally, I would say Yes it is interesting, BUT: Lizard is released under the QPL, which is incompatible to the GPL. Yes. I'm quite sure that somehow this will prevent us from using it without worrying about license issues again. It simply means we cannot reuse existing GPLed code (without getting the authors to offer it under a QPL-compatible license as well). For code written by Debian developers to be added to Lizard, it's probably best to use a dual license scheme (at your option, GPL2 (or newer) or QPL), or perhaps LGPL or BSD if they're QPL-compatible. Perhaps someone on -legal can comment on this? Ray -- UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY, UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: GIF encoding can be free?
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 08:31:08 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: The author claims that this implementation is free from patent problems. I can't say I'm particularly impressed by it, it looks somewhat like an attempt to put the blame elsewhere and possibly a confusion of copyright and patents. I read a more interesting remark about the GIF issue recently (most likely on Slashdot) that there was another patent covering LZW compression (which is the real problem in GIF encoding) by IBM. Some searching led me to the comp.compression FAQ (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-6.html) stating: :The IBM patent application was first filed three weeks before that of :Unisys, but the US patent office failed to recognize that they covered the :same algorithm. (The IBM patent is more general, but its claim 7 is exactly :LZW.) [The IBM patent number is given as 4,814,746; Unisys' as 4,558,302] Parts of IBM are quite cooperative when it comes to free software (think Haifa scheduler, Jikes, Secure Mailer aka Postfix), so perhaps it may be possible to get IBM to object to Unisys' patent and then free it. Ray -- J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may [EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one than the one the blocks | live in but it'll be a sight more vivid. | - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: Non-US and patents
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 18:20:45 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote: +/* NIST Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) effort. The algorithm */ +/* is subject to Patent action by IBM, who intend to offer royalty */ +/* free use if a Patent is granted.*/ This is OK to put into non-us/main. Not because free use is granted but because we don't care about us-patent rules in non-us. How sure are we IBM is only pursuing a patent in the US? [IDEA] If the above only covers patents and not the copyright I could put it into non-us/main? IDEA is patented in most of Europe, where non-US is located. If the copyright for the code mentions the above it should go into non-us/non-free? Probably, or use a free IDEA implementation (e.g. from the Pike crypto toolkit, or from mcrypt). Does the european patent mean anything to the package? I've not seen a concensus opinion about patent issues in Europe affecting non-US. Personally, I think that patent-encumbered algorithms should not be considered free, except where the patent is licensed in a liberal way (allowing free use in free software). (The CAST-256 thingy goes into non-free until I know what the CAST-256 conditions is. That is no problem.) CAST-128 was specifically not patented to allow it to become an IETF standard. I hope that if it's patented, its licensing condititions will be favourable. Ray -- J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may [EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one than the one the blocks | live in but it'll be a sight more vivid. | - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: nasm license: is this DFSG free?
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 16:44:52 +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote: Here's a copy of the license. Any comments will be greatly appreciated; the author is willing to change it if it doesn't meet our needs. The nasm author(s) have said they'd release it under GPL; that would clear all problems. See the logs for #21945 . Basically, NASM is free. You can't charge for it. Doesn't allow for a copying fee - non-free. You can copy it as much as you like. You can incorporate it, or bits of it, into other free programs if you want. No definition of free given - unclear. (But we want to know about it if you do, and we want to be mentioned in the credits.) We may well allow you to incorporate it into commercial software too, DFSG-free software can be commercial too. This should say proprietory or binary-only or somesuch. but we'll probably demand some money for it, and we'll certainly demand to be given credit. And in extreme cases (although I can't immediately think of a reason we might actually want to do this) we may refuse to let you do it at all. III. Modified forms of the Software may be created and distributed as long as the authors are informed of this action if possible, This shouldn't be obligatory. It should be a request, clearly separated from the main body of the license. as long as the resulting work remains under this licence, as long as the modified form of the Software is distributed with documentation which still gives credit to the original authors of the Software, and as long as the modified form of the Software is distributed with a clear statement that it is not the original form of the Software in the form that it was distributed by the authors. IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other software which is not freely redistributable (i.e. software for which a fee is charged), I can ask a fee for my GPLed code; that doesn't make it not freely redistributable. See RMS, Selling Free Software (can be OK) at www.gnu.org . as long as permission is granted from the authors of the Software. The authors reserve the right to grant this permission only for a fee, which may at our option take the form of royalty payments. The authors also reserve the right to refuse to grant permission if they deem it necessary. Ray -- PATRIOTISM A great British writer once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and betraying a friend he hoped he would have the decency to betray his country. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: is kde and kde app source debian-legally distributable?
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 13:52:14 -0500, Raul Miller wrote: You're asserting your conclusion as your argument. This gets nowhere. Raul, I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. To the best of my knowledge, The conflict between KDE's and Qt's license only affects the /distribution/ of /binaries/. I can't see what would be wrong in making it easier for our users to build KDE binaries themselves. Apperantly you seem to think otherwise. Why, in your opinion, would having a kde-src package (similar to the qmail-src and pine-src we already have) make Debian liable for contributory infringement? (2) the GPL -- for example, try to explain how it can restrict binaries in this case without also restricting source. The GPL says: :Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not :covered by this License; they are outside its scope. Thus, in the privacy of my own system, I can compile a GPL-ed source against whatever evil licensed library I wish (say a binary-only one like libforms). Ray -- J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may [EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one than the one the blocks | live in but it'll be a sight more vivid. | - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: is kde and kde app source debian-legally distributable?
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 08:15:11 -0500, Raul Miller wrote: There's a reason for us not to distribute debian sources: contributory infringement. (We're getting into the really hypothetical here, as Troll and KDE are working to make this discussion moot, but...) If I understand you correctly, you're saying something like Putting KDE sources on a Debian FTP site is encouraging people to build binaries of them and redistribute these binaries, thus encouraging them to violate the license agreement enforced by KDE being GPLed. This is too far-fetched for me to take seriously. By such a line of reasoning, putting binaries of free for noncommerical use software on the non-free section of a Debian site would be encouraging companies to use them. And, even more extreme, putting (source or binaries of) GPL-ed libraries on a Debian site could be construed as encouraging companies to violate the GPL on them. Ray -- LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto- destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
