Re: What are the tests? was: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: MongoDB Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

Beware these are proxy cases for dfsg criteria and not criteria themselves.

Paul

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 8:48 AM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:47 PM, Xavier wrote:
> >Le 16/10/2018 à 22:44, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> >> * Xavier:
> >>
>  From: Eliot Horowitz 
>  Date: Tue Oct 16 13:03:02 UTC 2018
>  Subject: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License,
>  Version 1 (SSPL v1)
>  ...
>  “If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version
>  available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service
>  Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge,
>  under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the
>  Program or modified version available to third parties as a service
>  includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with
>  the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through
>  a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or
>  primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version,
>  or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose
>  of the Software or modified version.
> >>>
> >>> I feel this part fails against the dissident test but I could be wrong.
> >>
> >> I think you are right, but the test  https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest>
> >> is not formally part of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> >
> >Right but as DFSG is just a guideline, my opinion is that:
> > - formal success to DFSG is not enough (else we would have to change
> >   them more often, which would create detrimental instability),
> > - if one of the 3 tests fails, we leave with an unfavorable opinion to
> >   start the discussion here.
> >
> >In this case, I feel that upstream team wants to limit freedom of their
> >software while remaining just at the limit of the rules.
> >
> >So for now, my feeling> is that it's not in the spirit of DFSG, while
> >respecting the words.
>
> Forgive me for sidetracking this conversation, but what are the 3 tests?  I
> found the Desert Island Test, but not the third one.
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
>
>

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

pabs is right. This would fail

On Oct 4, 2016 9:45 AM, "Yaroslav Halchenko"  wrote:

>
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
> > > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments
> have been
> > > //altered in the code, the modified code must be made accessible
> to the
> > > //original author(s).
>
> > This is impossible to comply with for those who do not have Internet
> > access so I think it would fail DFSG item 5; No Discrimination Against
> > Persons or Groups.
>
> ok -- playing devil's advocate (just a phrase, I am not of that opinion
> about the upstream ;)) -- nothing there states about connectivity
> (Internet) or media (digitized, printed) how they must be made
> accessible.  Could be via mail, bottle in the ocean, ...
>
> --
> Yaroslav O. Halchenko
> Center for Open Neuroscience http://centerforopenneuroscience.org
> Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
> Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834   Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
> WWW:   http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
>
>

Re: Re: Global IP Sound iLBC Public License, v2.0 - IETF Version

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

Hi, Kim Paflias,

I believe you might want the following to contact Apple's legal department.

https://www.apple.com/legal/contact/
On Mar 27, 2016 4:54 PM, "Kim Paflias"  wrote:

> I don't understand all this licensing information but if I have the right
> to refuse it in Anyway I would like to I have numerous files and stuff on
> my phone and Mac Pro book air that take up save and change the commands on
> my Mac if this is the cause or any kind of privacy issues please not I do
> not want to agree with this license due to my privacy
> thank you, kim paflias
> Touch ID only
>

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

FWIW, I've been rejecting them where I see them. Mind filing serious bugs
on those 11?

Paul
On Mar 20, 2016 11:32 AM, "Mattia Rizzolo"  wrote:

> [ please CC me as I'm not in d-legal@ ]
>
> So, today I discovered [0] that R-project has some polices regarding
> licenses [1].  In particular they have one regarding the MIT license
> [2].  This needs to go together with their extensions manuals [3].
>
> Read together they say that if you have an R module you want to license
> under MIT (which is really Expat) you have to:
>
> * Add a line with "License: MIT + file LICENSE" in the DESCRIPTION file
> * Add a LICENSE file with only (and they are explicit on the "only") 2
>   lines:
> YEAR: 
> COPYRIGHT HOLDER: 
>
> period.
>
> Now, the Expat/MIT license (in particular the one present at [2] have
> quite a clear statement:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> that requires the whole MIT license to be reported verbatim in every
> release and copy of code covered by it.
> But according to the R policy, R extensions do not, and the only
> reference to the MIT license is the single word "MIT" in the DESCRIPTION
> file.
>
> This seems to have been accepted by the ftp-masters, as there are at
> least 11 packages [4] in this condition already in the archive.  I
> should admin that with our packaging the distribution of these piece of
> software is ok, as we add a copy of license in the debian copyright
> file.
>
> Still, I think the way the R project distributes MIT-licensed stuff is
> not ok.
>
> What do you think?  Am I seeing a problem that actually isn't?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818622#25
> [1] https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/
> [2] https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/MIT
> [3] https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html#Licensing
> [4] found by looking up 'path:debian/copyright License: MIT' in
> codesearch.d.n and grepping the results for packages named /r-cran/
>
> --
> regards,
> Mattia Rizzolo
>
> GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
> more about me:  http://mapreri.org  : :'  :
> Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
> Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-
>

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

Have a link to 3-4 such webpages I can take a look at?

  Paul
On Jan 15, 2016 2:47 AM, "Hendrik Weimer"  wrote:

> Charles Plessy  writes:
>
> > so you wrote on your blog six years ago that distributing works done by
> US
> > government institutions is "a trap".  Do you have concrete examples of
> cases
> > where people fell in that trap and got hurt since then ?
>
> The "trap" is a reference to the similar situation in Java back then,
> i.e., you might have to invest more work to get rid of tainted
> code/content than it would have been to use properly licensed stuff to
> begin with.
>
> Actually, I find it quite remarkable that at least some US agencies have
> now started to put in explicit warnings into their works that all
> overseas rights are being reserved. This certainly shows they are aware
> of the situation, with actual enforcement being the next logical step.
>
> Hendrik
>
>

Re: GPL + question

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

That's literally what I said.

d/copyright is for source not binary.
On May 29, 2015 8:42 AM, Riley Baird 
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch wrote:

   I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
   packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
   directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
   Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
   Bertin) and released in the package under GPL-3+.
 
  Upstream authors can't change licensing of any files, under any
  conditions, ever.
 
  If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined
  with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other
  file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the
  terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every file in the
  combined / derived work.

 But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
 parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
 file as a whole can only be distributed under GPLv3.

Re: GPL + question

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

 Or a CLA. Or breaking copyright law. Or modified the work and distribute
 it under a superset of the old terms. Or or or :)

For the record; I don't believe Apple is breaking copyright law, and I
didn't mean to imply that :)


-- 
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/CAO6P2QQOZvg4eP2Rrcbf2XRwVZY_c-bDhRaSWVE-+g=mfp-...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

On Mar 24, 2015 1:17 PM, Jeff Epler jep...@unpythonic.net wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
  Hello,
 
  Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL)
  but not as in beer?

 Debian contains software in main which is covered by the AGPLv3.  In
 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote on behalf of the ftpmasters and ftp-team:

 The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
 go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems).
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00097.html

 However, software with a specific restriction you mention,
  The program wants a fee when you create more then 5 users.
  It's a program for enterprises.
 is unlikely to be DFSG-free if it is prohibited to remove the specific
 restriction.

Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
its not dfsg free.


 If you are talking about a specific piece of software, please name it
 and post its license so that we know what we are discussing.

 Jeff


 --
 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/20150324165102.gg17...@unpythonic.net

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:

 Hi,

 there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due
 to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB.

 I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at
 least two points:

 • The inability to provide security support for AGPL software
   (embargoed fixes)/

 • The requirements for source delivery using the network once
   someone patches it.

 • The “viral” component, like GPL, only worsened by the above.

 I’d like to see whether there was anything decided, since I’ve
 been asked yesternight to sponsor some packages, and one of them
 contained AGPLv3+ code (and it’s a plugin for an LGPLv2.1+ program,
 so I asked the prospective maintainer to hit upstream with a big
 foamy cluebat about their choice of licence – which he did – since
 it’d Conflicts with e.g. GPLv2-only plugins).

 So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main?

Yes.


 Personally I’m ambiguous, but then, I’m not a fan of GPL either.

 bye,
 //mirabilos


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130827t135650-...@post.gmane.org