Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of erotic interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children
*TRIGGER WARNING* in case it wasn't painfully obvious for this thread by now. On 14/03/14 02:21, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org writes: Jo Shields dijo [Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:34:59PM +]: Let's be very, very, very clear then. This is a game where you play a paedophile. The aim is to rape local little girls, whilst evading the authorities. Success is rewarded with graphic scenes of sex with children, failure with being thrown in prison. The sex content is only optional in the sense that you can out yourself to the authorities and get thrown in jail rather than continue with the actual game content. Where game content consists of a few hundred drawn images of graphic sex acts with children. The script unrpa.py can be used to extract all the assets from the .rpa files in the upstream-distributed game. We're not talking about some great moral position on artistic integrity here. There are interesting visual novels made with Ren'Py worth considering for Debian. But I don't think, on any sane planet, Hero Paedo Fucks Kids In German is a game we want in the archive. Bufff... If even the game is ¹/₁₀ of what Jo describes here, I'd very very very very very very very much prefer not having it anywhere near the Debian archive. Not only because the plot line is actively against *many* things many of the DDs have been working hard to reduce on the project for a very long time (and by tenthing the game, it'd still include sexism and violence, even if Jo's view was heavily distorted — And I have no indications not to trust this mini-review!) I do not know how you can “out yourself to the authorities” in the game. Jo, could you explain to me what in-game choices trigger that? The second dialogue box in the game, with Breite Dorfbewohnerin. http://i.imgur.com/NvqM6YF.png Second option - game over. I'm sorry if you feel my lack of command of the German language disqualifies me to comment on the clever subtext in semen-soaked preteens. Good news is apparently an English translation is in the works! Yay! For those who have not played the game, please look at any one of these videos that show how the game plays before judging its artistic merit: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unteralterbach Are we having this discussion? Really? That's a thing we're doing? Fine. Sigh. Bernd And The Mystery Of Underageville is a game by, and for, a German-language 4chan-style image board, Krautchan. The users of that forum are generically referred to as Bernds - it's no accident that the protagonist's name is Bernd, one of the developers uses Berlin Bernd as a pseudonym, and that the dev team is called BerndSoft. Speaking of BerndSoft, here's devlogo.png from the game: http://i.imgur.com/6dI7Nx0.png The subtitle reads: BerndSoft is the place where you can enjoy the beauty of eroge. We made software featuring young and petite lolis. You will definitely find these excellent games worth to be called true masterpieces. For those at the back, loli is the general term used for underage girls in manga. So what's the content, exactly? Well, I'm no domain expert on this. Fortunately this is the Internet, and there are plenty of domain experts on the content to be found. On All The Fallen, a web forum which describes itself as a forum for lolicon [illustrated little girl porn] and shotacon [illustrated little boy porn]. It is NOT child friendly and they do allow pedophiles so it is highly advised you avoid this site at all costs, user l0licon describes the game as: You turn Bernd into a pedophile and need to save the world by having sex with lolis He's backed up by user Kyle8910: It's kinda like that, yeah. At first, any loli sex is done by force as when raped by fairies (Cirno in background), but then it changes where you are standing up for those lolis who want to have sex. I mean, you find a pot smoking loli who happily does stuff with you. You earn loli power from this and it helps fight the demon bitch near the end. Really tough boss btw. Elsewhere, on all-knowing 4chan: It's the one where Muhammad lets you fuck his child bride. Which sounds like exactly the kind of thing we desperately want in the Debian archive, clearly. Curiously, the quality of the soundtrack doesn't seem to come up much in the reviews of the game, so much as the quality of the child sex. With the exception of violence implied by the various game overs (prison rape, being eaten by pigs etc.), the game is not very violent. There is only one sex scene in the game where a non-player character is clearly not consenting – the rape lands the protagonist immediately in prison. CHILDREN CAN'T CONSENT. This is a paedophile fantasy, the she's the one who seduced *me*! argument gets trotted out in court time after time. By definition, the game's dozen child sex scenes are of child abuse which is legally equivalent to rape in most jurisdictions in the world. Well, you could argue
Re: Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of erotic interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children
I honestly believe that almost none of those of us discusing the game has even tried it (I haven't at least) and I don't think anyone who hasn't even tested it can have a solid opinion. As far as I understand, we're all defining our position 2nd hand on Bas' analysis. Let's be very, very, very clear then. This is a game where you play a paedophile. The aim is to rape local little girls, whilst evading the authorities. Success is rewarded with graphic scenes of sex with children, failure with being thrown in prison. The sex content is only optional in the sense that you can out yourself to the authorities and get thrown in jail rather than continue with the actual game content. Where game content consists of a few hundred drawn images of graphic sex acts with children. The script unrpa.py can be used to extract all the assets from the .rpa files in the upstream-distributed game. We're not talking about some great moral position on artistic integrity here. There are interesting visual novels made with Ren'Py worth considering for Debian. But I don't think, on any sane planet, Hero Paedo Fucks Kids In German is a game we want in the archive. *Seriously* how is it possible that this bullshit has taken up as much time as it already has? -- 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/531f8f93.5060...@apebox.org
Re: Moonlight Package Licensing
On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 21:41 -0400, saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote: Quoting Jo Shields direct...@apebox.org: Why am I only hearing about licensing concerns regarding a package I maintain when reading about it on a personal attack website? I'd usually think that a package's maintainer should be included in such discussions, assuming you're interested in their input. Please remember that debian-legal is an advice forum, and in no way has a formal role regarding license compliance - that role belongs to ftp-master. I was not aware that debian-legal was a personal attack website. :) It's not. But BoycottNovell is, and the first I heard about your posting to debian-legal was there - as opposed to being CC'd in as the package's maintainer. But seriously, I welcome your input and appreciate your response. You've addressed many of the concerns I raised and it would seem I had indeed garnered some misconceptions from the Debianwiki Project page. No animosity was intended in my pointing out inaccuracies on that page, nor did I consider them to be overly disconcerting. More than anything, the Project wiki was presented as the basis for my understanding of the codebase (but in time the page should be amended). Regarding Cairo components and the Mozilla Public License: The license has zero role in the package - but rules state that licenses need to be disclosed in debian/copyright for ALL source in a given source tarball, whether that code is used in final binary packages or not. The embedded copies of cairo and pixman are NOT used in the binary packages. Nor is any Ms-PL source. Apparently I have been misinformed on the components constituting the Debian binary package and much of my concern over that misapprehended. If one may ask, why is there code in the source tarball that does not get included in the binary? Is their exclusion handled by configure switches? The Project wiki provided an admirable description of the role FFMPEG played in the package; perhaps a similar description could be provided for code licensed under the MPL, LGPLv2.1, and Ms-PL. Upstream recommends that their own copy of Cairo be used - I ignore this, basically because I hate duplication of libraries (as do ftp-master), and there doesn't seem to be any actual changes to the bundled copy that would necessitate giving it its own unique copy. It's controlled by the --with-cairo flag - the package uses --with-cairo=system to use Debian's Cairo. The Ms-PL stuff consists of two places - some Javascript files (which are never compiled anyway, and are used as part of the test harness), and Microsoft's Silverlight Controls (which would be enabled using --with-managed=yes, default is no). This stuff isn't compiled basically because Moonlight 1.0 isn't usable as a Managed (Silverlight 2.0-compatible) plugin. When it eventually IS compiled in future packages, then it'll be as distinct libraries - i.e. the moon source package isn't producing one enormous .so mixing all its constituent libraries, the Ms-PL section of the source will be compiled into its own .dll with no mingling of other incompatibly-licensed source. And I think we can agree that using a library with one license on a runtime with another license is fine (Just ask the libc folks) As a final comment, and one more hypothetical in nature, the Ms-PL makes no distinction between derived and collective works and offers no exemption for mere aggregation (as does the General Public License). In lieu of such an exception, we are left with relying upon the interpretation of the courts as to what constitutes a derived or collected work of joint authorship under copyright law. Should a Ms-PL-licensed package be included with a Debian distribution, it may very well be argued that the entire distribution (a collective work) must be offered under licensing which complies with the Ms-PL -- any inclusion of code for which there is no patent grant could be construed as infringement of the copyrights of Ms-PLed code's author. How likely does that REALLY seem to you? codeplex.com contains a lot of Ms-PL source, and a lot of other licenses (including some non-Free licenses). How likely does it seem that a mere aggregation like a code website is actually licensing everything under one of its constituent licenses, by accident? Let me clarify that when I stated my comment was more hypothetical, it was precisely owing to the fact that the Moonlight packages are in a third-party repository and that a code website should probably not be considered under copyright law definitions as a ?joint work? (... a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole - USC Title 17 § 101). The argument that a Debian distribution might be a joint work, however, is not quite so
Re: Moonlight Package Licensing
Why am I only hearing about licensing concerns regarding a package I maintain when reading about it on a personal attack website? I'd usually think that a package's maintainer should be included in such discussions, assuming you're interested in their input. Please remember that debian-legal is an advice forum, and in no way has a formal role regarding license compliance - that role belongs to ftp-master. Firstly, there seems to be some inaccuracies on the Project's Debianwiki page (http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianMonoGroup/Moonlight). This page isn't guaranteed to be up to date or accurate - it was used largely for discussion and collaboration whilst the package was being prepared. The Debian Mono Group uses wiki pages for collaboration a fair bit. The Moonlight licensing is described as consisting of MIT/X11, Ms-PL, and LGPL2.0-only; yet there are Cairo components in the source tree which are licensed under the dual licenses of the Mozilla Public License and the LGPLv2.1-only. There is no real conflict here (to my understanding), however, offering this code under any of the MIT/X11, Ms-PL, or LGPL2.0-only licenses relies upon the fact that the *MPL* permits re-licensing under more restrictive terms (the LGPLv2.1 licensing of the Cairo code serves no purpose towards this end -- you can't re-license LGPLv2.1-only software except as GPL). The project page, as well as all of the appropriate sources' COPYING files, should reflect the nature of this re-licensing (the moonlight-mozilla-plugin provides the text of the Mozilla Public License but does not indicate the license's role in the package). The license has zero role in the package - but rules state that licenses need to be disclosed in debian/copyright for ALL source in a given source tarball, whether that code is used in final binary packages or not. The embedded copies of cairo and pixman are NOT used in the binary packages. Nor is any Ms-PL source. Moonlight 1.0 is a combination made by compiling LGPL2, GPL2 (ffmpeg), and MIT/X11 together. The result is unambiguously GPL2. However, dumb as it may seem, debian/copyright doesn't reveal a package's final compiled binary license (only the source tree). Also in the same section, the Ms-PL is characterized as a DFSG-free GPL3-compatible license from Microsoft which is essentially MIT with patent grants. The GPL3 compatibility claim contradicts the description given on GNU.org (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) wherein it is stated, This is a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. The description of Ms-PL from the FSF changed between when that wiki page was written and now, with no obvious discussion involved. At the time the page was written, it was marked as GPL3-compatible. I would neither contradict nor corroborate the DFSG-free claim for the Ms-PL, but note that there is no mention of the Ms-PL on Debianwiki's DFSG Licenses page (http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses). If I have missed wherein the discussion occurred over the compatibility of the Ms-PL with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I should welcome the opportunity to read it. I believe the first Ms-PL licensed source code in the archive was IronPython - please refer to its packager and possibly the appropriate ftpmaster (and the ITP bug, and so on) to read about it. More importantly, it seems rather inescapable that a Debian binary package is a collective work of the software that is included in that package. The licensing of that collective work must not conflict with the terms and conditions of the individual licenses of components of that package. The question is thus raised, what is the licensing for the Debian binary package of Moonlight? GPL2. See above. As a final comment, and one more hypothetical in nature, the Ms-PL makes no distinction between derived and collective works and offers no exemption for mere aggregation (as does the General Public License). In lieu of such an exception, we are left with relying upon the interpretation of the courts as to what constitutes a derived or collected work of joint authorship under copyright law. Should a Ms-PL-licensed package be included with a Debian distribution, it may very well be argued that the entire distribution (a collective work) must be offered under licensing which complies with the Ms-PL -- any inclusion of code for which there is no patent grant could be construed as infringement of the copyrights of Ms-PLed code's author. How likely does that REALLY seem to you? codeplex.com contains a lot of Ms-PL source, and a lot of other licenses (including some non-Free licenses). How likely does it seem that a mere aggregation like a code website is actually licensing everything under one of its constituent licenses, by accident? See also: Hanlon's Razor. Regards. --Jo Shields signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 21:05 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: Hi Jo, Nice to see your newly found interest in C++ packages (though, not completely unexpected) :-) Nothing wrong with C++ in moderation. My last ITP was a C++ browser plugin. On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:26:18PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: Please note that this project in its current form contains swathes of major copyright violations and cannot be uploaded to Debian - almost all source files contain Tomboy source, with Copyright unilaterally changed. Compare, for an example, http://gitorious.org/projects/gnote/repos/mainline/blobs/master/src/preferencesdialog.cpp to http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/tomboy/trunk/Tomboy/PreferencesDialog.cs?revision=2349view=markup This kind of rewrite is completely permitted under Tomboy's license - changing the copyright without the author's permission is not. If there's a problem, we'll get it sorted out, but I need more specific info on your findings; the example you pasted shows a file with nor copyright statement neither license information (from tomboy) and one with both of them (in gnote). Please tell me which of these (in your judgement) apply: - The new file seems to be asserting copyright for the code as a whole, and it's not implicitly understood that it only applies to the originality added to it by rewriting in C++. (this is somewhat contentious, since there are examples of other programs doing the same, but it can be fixed by adding a clarification to each file) - The new license (GPL v3) is incompatible with LGPL v2.1 (it's not; see section 13 of the LGPL v2.1) - There are copyright/license statements being replaced, elsewhere in the code. (if this is so, please give some example) - Something else. (be my guest) GNote's source (I gave an example, but examples cover pretty much the entire source tree) includes verbatim copies of Tomboy's source. This is a reasonable way to develop a port (i.e. keep the old code there to refer to when writing new code) - however, the copyright header in the file is clearly asserting that the file is 100% copyrighted by Hubert Figuiere when it's not. Continuing with PreferencesDialog.cs as the example, compare: preferencesdialog.cpp lines 68-73 - PreferencesDialog.cs lines 66-71 preferencesdialog.cpp lines 90-103 - PreferencesDialog.cs lines 88-100 preferencesdialog.cpp lines 385-396 - PreferencesDialog.cs lines 403-408 And so on. * Copyright (C) 2009 Hubert Figuiere is simply false, and a clear violation of Tomboy's license. Hubert's work is impressive, but is not his own work - it's the people in http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/tomboy/trunk/AUTHORS?revision=2210view=markup plus him. I'm not doing a detailed analysis on every file in Tomboy's source tree because frankly there's too much of it. Tomboy's upstream have been alerted, and are trying to contact the GNote author to resolve the issue Good to know. I'll speak with the gnote author too, but first you'll have to give some more information, or at least point me to it :-) Is there some description/summary of the problem elsewhere I can check? You'd need to speak to the Tomboy people for more detail. Try #tomboy on GIMPnet - until then, GNote cannot be considered suitable for Debian. Sure. Btw, I'm adding debian-legal to CC, perhaps they can provide some insight (as you know, when there are doubts about legal stuff it is considered good practice to discuss things in that list). Cheers signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
