Re: openjdk-8 upstream limits source distribution?

2014-09-02 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014, Walter Landry wrote: Due to limited intellectual property protection and enforcement in certain countries, the JDK source code may only be distributed to an authorized list of countries. You will not be able to access the source code if you are downloading from a country that

Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?

2012-09-18 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Steve Langasek wrote: In this specific case, you're suggesting that we should for some reason care that a user can't make a counterfactual claim in court that this software has been licensed by the DOE for use in nuclear facilities. Suppose someone puts this license on

Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?

2012-09-16 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Steve Langasek wrote: * You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or * intended for use in the design, construction, operation or * maintenance of any nuclear facility. This is a standard No warranty clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US. It is not a

Re: Channel logos in vdr-plugin-markad

2012-04-30 Thread Ken Arromdee
Wouldn't using a derived bitmap of the logo to check for the existence of the logo be fair use? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Re: Bug#666010: ITP: nvidia-texture-tools -- image processing and texture manipulation tools

2012-03-28 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Each one of us is free to *think* that a piece of software in the Debian archive is patent encumbered, whatever that means, and possibly thinking so due to the legitimate interests of patent owners that want *everybody* to think pieces of software

Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files

2012-03-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: If I ask a random person on the street to translate a GPLed text fragment, and the person give me a translated text fragment back, will the resulting text fragment still be GPLed? Assuming the text fragment was copyrightable in the first place, I

Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files

2012-03-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: The translator would be violating the GPL, but since this is fair use, violating the GPL this way would be legal. What is the translator doing in the example we are discussing that is violating the GPL? Please explain more, as I failed to

Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files

2012-03-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: I on the other hand believe that the translator here implicitly put this derived work under GPL, because not doing it would be in violation of the GPL. I believe assuming people follow the law and the license is a better assumtion to make than to

Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files

2012-03-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Mark Weyer wrote: I do not think your argument is sound. Assume I write a text, publish it under a license which basically says that everyone translating it ows me EUR 1000, and then ask a random person on the street to translate it (even without mentioning how it is

Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness

2011-08-31 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Francesco Poli wrote: 3. All advertising materials (including web pages) mentioning features or use of this software, or software that uses this software, must display the following acknowledgment: This product uses software developed by Spread Concepts LLC for use in the

Re: XNAT license terms... any chance for main?

2011-06-06 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, PJ Weisberg wrote: 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 it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A

Re: XNAT license terms... any chance for main?

2011-06-03 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko 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

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

2011-04-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote: I'm trying to figure out how transmitting a range of bytes in a torrent is different than transmitting a range of bytes in response to e.g., an FTP REST or an HTTP byte-range request. It's not. Imagine that instead of torrenting the file, you just

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

2011-04-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Michael Poole wrote: How do you reconcile your claim with these sections of the GPLv2 and v3, both referring to an executable or object-code form of the work? GPLv2, section 3: You may Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute

Re: Providing source for .iso files downloaded using bittorrent

2011-04-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: What do you think? Um, I think I said the same thing, down to the reference to the GPLV3 clause meant to prevent the problem? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

2011-04-24 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Vincent Bernat wrote: The problem is that on Bittorrent, everyone who downloads also uploads. This makes it illegal to download just a binary, since if you do that you're also uploading just a binary, and uploading just a binary is a form of distribution the GPL doesn't

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

2011-04-24 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Michael Wild wrote: The problem is that on Bittorrent, everyone who downloads also uploads. This makes it illegal to download just a binary, since if you do that you're also uploading just a binary, and uploading just a binary is a form of distribution the GPL doesn't

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

2011-04-23 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Stefan Hirschmann wrote: The lawyer wants the poster to pay 700 Euro and stop uploading of Debian. - My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation and the project should take legal action against the lawyer and this company.

Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]

2011-03-21 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote: Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in

Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]

2011-03-21 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Francesco Poli wrote: However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make

Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?

2011-03-08 Thread Ken Arromdee
The distinction between a derivative work and a separate work is not based on technology but on functionality. Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However, if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes it useless without that program, what is

Re: Inappropriate use of Debian logo.

2010-11-30 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: As far as I can tell (IANAL, and before contacting SPI lawyer) what we should ask Legend PC is then to come into compliance of the license, by mentioning copyright and permission notices. But copyright doesn't apply to independent invention, which

Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died

2009-06-01 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 30 May 2009, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources can be found. Is there any rule that applies to this case, I mean, when an author dies? I'd think that

Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models

2009-05-28 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Wed, 27 May 2009, Francesco Poli wrote: I instead think that FTP masters should change their minds about 2D images rendered from 3D models. I suggest you start your own distribution, in which you won’t ship: * xfonts-* (bitmap renderings of non-free vector fonts) Are you

Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL

2009-04-18 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also illegal if you just distribute the other program and have the user do the link. HOW? I hope the FSF

Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL

2009-04-17 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, MJ Ray wrote: http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/191 makes me think the combination only happens at compile time, so including unused source would be OK. I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to link a program with GPL software and distribute that,

Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL

2009-04-17 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also illegal if you just distribute the other program and have the user do the link. HOW? I hope the FSF doesn't

Re: Short copyright notice in script file

2009-03-22 Thread Ken Arromdee
First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US. Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing. http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html Read carefully the sections describing 602(a), particularly page 148. # copies that are not subject to

Re: Short copyright notice in script file

2009-03-18 Thread Ken Arromdee
As I pointed out, in the US, First Sale is in title 17, chapter 1, section 109. # Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a # particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any # person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of #

Re: Short copyright notice in script file

2009-03-14 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Francesco Poli wrote: U.S. copyright law [1] states, in section 106: [...] | the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do | and to authorize any of the following: [...] | (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to |

Re: Short copyright notice in script file

2009-03-14 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: 109 has this: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell

Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment

2009-02-08 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote: 1) The safe way: See what it does, describe someone else not knowing the code to write code doing this for you and use that code. Does that actually work? The description is a derivative work of the code; the new code is a derivative work of the

Re: Which license am I looking for?

2009-01-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Consider how hard it would be to have the law say products must contain warnings about nuts,

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

2009-01-09 Thread Ken Arromdee
(Here goes an email with actual content, since I messed up...) I suggest you Google up user does the link. [...] I suggest you just post the URL(s) you mean. Google results pages are highly volatile and vary by browser location: what you saw then may not be what I see now. You don't

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

2009-01-06 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Kern Sibbald wrote: 1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution violates the GPL license). Isn't it the FSF's position that user does the link violates GPL? No. Please read the GPL. I suggest you Google up user does the link. Unless

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

2009-01-05 Thread Ken Arromdee
1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution violates the GPL license). Isn't it the FSF's position that user does the link violates GPL? Of course, even then, that only applies to distribution--which means that the user can build it from source himself, but the

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

2008-12-31 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian. Say what? If you GPL a program and don't provide source code

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

2008-12-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian. Say what? If you GPL a program and don't provide source code, Debian

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-09-18 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to the whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are packaged. Thus if the game code or

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

2008-09-02 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Gervase Markham wrote: If it's a small embedded system, the source code is likely also to be small. Or is this a combination of the small embedded system objection and the gigabytes of modified source objection? This problem could actually arise for the GPL too. Consider a

Re: source code written by monkey

2008-08-11 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, [ISO-8859-15] Philipp Hübner wrote: The actual author of this file (Edgar Toernig) refused to put any copyrights / licenses on it and claims that his monkey has written it, because international copyright law does not apply to animals' works. This way he wants to make is

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Francesco Poli wrote: OK, that said, if you wanted to modify a public key (in order to obtain something else), what form would you use for making modifications? I think the preferred form would be the one in which the GPG public key is distributed by keyservers or some

Re: Desert island test

2008-03-06 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote: It's pretty similar to the bloody lunatic test; the license says you can't distribute unless you follow some condition (distribute source/send changes off the island), but an external force having nothing to do with the author of the software forces you

Re: Desert island test

2008-03-06 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Adam Borowski wrote: Having a country non-free doesn't make a license non-free. In the chinese dissident test the user chooses to fight against the bloody murderer (who wears an uniform) -- he breaks unrelated laws, yet does not breach the license in any way. A license

Re: Desert island test

2008-03-06 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote: No, that isn't true. A change to the license which says you don't need to include source would prevent the bloody murderer from being a problem, just like a change saying you don't need to send changes off the island would prevent the island from being a

Re: Desert island test

2008-03-06 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Ben Finney wrote: consider this: if the bloody murderer will kill you if you reveal your identity (dissident test) the license demanding you do so is nonfree. But if the bloody murderer will kill you if you distribute source, the license demanding you do so is fine.

Re: Desert island test

2008-03-05 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote: Allow me to propose my own convenient test, which I refer to as the Bloody Murderer Test: In that case and if the lunatic is truthful, no software under the GPL is free for 'you'. However, that's the fault of the lunatic and not the software or its

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Mike Hommey wrote: You're taking it in the wrong order. The GPL doesn't forbid you to distribute the code because of the bloody murderer. The dissident and the desert island tests are about restrictions *inside* the license, related to some situations. Here, you just

Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs

2008-01-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, John Halton wrote: Maybe I'm missing someone, but in this scenario, isn't it the user who logs in, not the administrator, making the copy? The administrator wouldn't be conveying anything since he's not copying. The user is distributing someone else's software to

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

2008-01-13 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: 1. You may not use, modify, reproduce, derive from, (re)distribute, or sublicense This Product, or portion(s) thereof, except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt (even if permitted by applicable law) otherwise to use, modify,

Re: Trademark scope (just for the record)

2007-09-08 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Rick Moen wrote: Pepsico doesn't ask the Coca-Cola Company's permission to publish claims that its sugar-water is better tasting than is Coca-Cola. That ought to be a big, fat clue, but far too many people have been successfully conned and don't think about the

Re: Trademark scope (just for the record)

2007-09-07 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Rick Moen wrote: Pepsico doesn't ask the Coca-Cola Company's permission to publish claims that its sugar-water is better tasting than is Coca-Cola. That ought to be a big, fat clue, but far too many people have been successfully conned and don't think about the

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

2007-05-01 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is all bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG. Copyright law is not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception. Neither do licenses, which are distributed

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

2007-04-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: What I'm saying is that the DFSG can only be applied to a certain point. We can require that license terms applied to works are DFSG-free. We can require that license terms applied to those licenses-as-works are DFSG-free. We can require that the

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

2007-04-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely there's no disagreement on this? It is irrelevant, because of several reasons that have already been pointed out in this

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-13 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: Anyway, whenever some form of a work is the preferred one for modifications (i.e.: source form), but, at the same time, is inconvenient to distribute, well, the work is inconvenient to distribute in a Free manner! This is an unfortunate technical

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-13 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: If the work is inconvenient to distribute free, then we should be telling the author distributing it free is probably not what you want to do. I don't think the Debian Project (or debian-legal contributors) should promote non-free software. On

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-12 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Don Armstrong wrote: If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release the source, you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no obligation to give you anything. This is the same

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-12 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: When the uncompressed form is really huge, maybe even the upstream maintainer thinks it's inconvenient to work with. In that case, he/she may prefer to modify the compressed form directly: hence, the source code is really the compressed form! That

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-11 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote: Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like GPL or Expat can apply to it. Actually, there's one big problem. The GPL's preferred form for modification clause.

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-11 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner, they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL v2. Wonderful! That is a feature of the GPL, not a bug! Recipients should not be in a position of disadvantage

Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions

2006-08-10 Thread Ken Arromdee
1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? Consider an analogy. An amusement park ride puts up a sign saying that kids must be 4 feet tall to enter. A little while later, it declares that kids must be allowed in if they're 47 inches, and

Re: BCFG Public License

2006-07-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the

Re: BCFG Public License

2006-07-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On 29 Jul 2006, Michael Poole wrote: The license demands that a licensor agree that the US government might criminally prosecute him for prohibited exports from the United States (the license says OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA). Good luck arguing against that broad statement; there are

Re: GPL violates DFSG point 3

2006-06-01 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Ben Finney wrote: It occurs to me that the GPL itself violates section 3 of the DFSG, it cannot be freely modified. (See: A useful summary of the position of debian-legal on this point is here: URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00290.html That

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote: These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications. I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial specifications. What's the difference between full specification for A, which is a subset of B and partial specification of

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-17 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Adam McKenna wrote: I didn't mean give an example of such a jurisdiction, I meant give an example of infringing, non-distributional copying. Umm, copying that occurs in such a jurisdiction? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

2006-01-16 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, olive wrote: I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't make more copies himself. B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them as he wishes by first

Re: Distributing GPL software.

2006-01-13 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: And I'm still not in prison. How come? 1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of the program in question. 2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law. I think his point is this: Person A can

Re: Is libreludedb DFSG compliant?

2006-01-05 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Marco Franzen wrote: What if I don't want to link it? I may want to - just publish (parts of) the source code (or (of) a modified version) - modify it into something that isn't a library and publish the source - paste code fragments into an embedded/free-standing

Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review

2005-08-27 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: That said, it looks to me like this license grants you the right to use those game mechanics, including making and distributiong modified versions of them. If you've spotted someplace in this license which prohibits that kind of thing, I'd appreciate

Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review

2005-08-27 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: AFAIK, there is no pre-existing case law that demonstrates that game mechanics are or are not copyrightable. There have been cases of people being brought to court for making compatible rules (Palladium I believe did this) but I think the case was

Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review

2005-08-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable. To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work, their implementations are copyrightable. But that's not what TSR means. They're claiming that if you use their game

Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review

2005-08-23 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: The problem is that the GPL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that you otherwise can't do. The OGL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that are otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt you with

Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review

2005-08-22 Thread Ken Arromdee
On 22 Aug 2005, MJ Ray wrote: I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I

Re: BitTorrent Open Source License (Proposed Changes)

2005-08-01 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Michael Poole wrote: It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed. I'm not sure that's a distinction. After all, a fee applies

Re: BitTorrent Open Source License (Proposed Changes)

2005-07-31 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Michael Poole wrote: It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed. I'm not sure that's a distinction. After all, a fee applies

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

2005-07-30 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote: If the GPL lets the user do it, it isn't infringement at all. You can't have contributory infringement if there's no infringement. The GPL is not a new copyright statute with the power to override the meaning of infringement, nor do its

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

2005-07-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote: But that doesn't apply in the case of automatic systems for users to do the link. The GPL allows users to do what they want privately, so the users aren't performing infringing acts themselves. While Andrew's parallel to Grokster is IMHO

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

2005-07-28 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: Anyway, the person who recombines the film and track, in the case of dynamic linking, is the *USER*, in the process of using the program, and copyrights protection do not apply at that moment, as per 17USC. You Are Wrong. Under US law, this is

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

2005-07-23 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, David Nusinow wrote: This is true, but not because the driver isn't commented. It's because the specs for the card have not been released, and as such we don't know what the magic numbers mean. The hardware specs are entirely external to the source code for the driver

Re: Trademark license compatibility with GPL and/or DFSG

2005-05-24 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote: They want their trademarks stripped from modified code that is essentially different in intent and purpose from the original code. Well, that's fine; we don't want to use their trademarks for things which aren't designed to work with their

Re: Trademark license compatibility with GPL and/or DFSG

2005-05-19 Thread Ken Arromdee
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question? If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X, it should be legal to name it driver for X. (Of course, what is legal and what keeps you from getting sued aren't nececssarily the same.)

Re: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

2005-05-13 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Raul Miller wrote: And, I might add, this is another respect in which the FSF FAQ verges upon the dishonest. Since 17 USC 117 explicitly limits the scope of what can be considered infringement under section 106, it also nullifies any claims of contributory

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-15 Thread Ken Arromdee
Hmmm. One can argue that the EXPORT_SYMBOL* are copyright grants, and as such can't be freely edited, just like the comments as /* this module (C) 1999 Fulana Perez */ that are in the code. Removing such comments *is* illegal, and editing EXPORTs can be, too... Wouldn't this, if

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-02-28 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote: No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless version is what the original author would use to make a modification to the JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the lossless version immediately on making the JPEG,

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: First, there's a separation exception: If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply

Re: LCC and blobs

2005-01-07 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Raul Miller wrote: And of course there's the absurd situation where a manufacturer decides to move firmware from a device from a ROM to a CD and Debian suddenly cannot provide a driver for it Most likely, Debian IS able to provide a driver for it. Well, unless we

Re: LCC and blobs

2005-01-06 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Josh Triplett wrote: If the firmware we have packaged in non-free comes standard on the device, then the driver does not need a copy of the firmware, so it does not have a dependency on it. Hm? The driver does need a copy of the firmware. It needs a copy that is present

Re: LCC and blobs

2004-12-28 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: That said, or not, I do think there's a significant practical difference between firmware which ships as software, say on a CD accompanying the device, and firmware which ships on the device: * The firmware on the CD is typically not

Re: LCC and blobs

2004-12-28 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: I probably can't. No good with that sort of thing. Software on disk is software. Also, I could pull the Pentium off my motherboard, scan its contents to disk, and open that in any editor I like -- right? So if a BIOS can be scanned by a

Re: LCC and blobs

2004-12-28 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: But that's a strange reason to require that the firmware blob on CD be free. It's essentially saying if you can make it hard to modify the firmware, you don't need to allow modifications at all. As always, intent matters. But most people

Re: GPL and command-line libraries

2004-12-03 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote: If there is -- if Wontshare in some way tries to enforce the use of readline, then this non-distributable product is being distributed Why? Distributing X, which relies on Y, isn't the same as distributing the combination. Surely you don't think that if

Re: GPL and command-line libraries

2004-12-03 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote: If I ship some product in three parts, such that the combination of those three parts is consistently assembled and used, then I'm distributing that product. Says who? Shipping parts can be different from shipping a combination if for some reason you are

Re: GPL compatible license?

2004-11-16 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Martin Schulze wrote: or instead you may notify anyone requesting source that it is freely available from the Elm Development Group. Doesn't it say that it is sufficient to inform the users that they can fetch the entire source code of Elm from the Elm

Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib

2004-10-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: I would disqualify that driver from main not because it depended on a Windows driver, but because it depended on having Windows itself. I see; so some dependencies on non-free software are to be considered acceptable, while others are not? I meant

Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?

2004-10-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: The person who has the device doesn't neceessarily have the firmware, because the firmware can be removed. The person doesn't have the device at that point -- only part of it. The same reasoning applies for both examples if you refer

Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?

2004-10-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote: The driver is opening a block of data on disk, reading it and sending it to the hardware. If that data does not exist, the driver will be incapable of driving the hardware. For the driver to work, in addition to installing it and the hardware device,

Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?

2004-10-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: And that is a functional difference: in one case the owner of the device who has downloaded some Debian software has to go get some other software and load it onto his machine; in the other case he doesn't. That's not a functional difference.

Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?

2004-10-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: However, suppose that your statement were true. Why stop there? Consider the case of a piece of hardware which could not be initialized correctly except by the Windows driver. In order for the device to work, a user would need to boot up Windows,

  1   2   >