BOLA licence (darcsweb): free or not?
It seems DFSG-free to me but who knows? I don't like licenses, because I don't like having to worry about all this legal stuff just for a simple piece of software I don't really mind anyone using. But I also believe that it's important that people share and give back; so I'm placing darcsweb under the following license, so you feel guilty if you don't ;) BOLA - Buena Onda License Agreement --- This work is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this work. To all effects and purposes, this work is to be considered Public Domain. However, if you want to be Buena onda, you should: 1. Not take credit for it, and give proper recognition to the authors. 2. Share your modifications, so everybody benefits from them. 4. Do something nice for the authors. 5. Help someone who needs it: sign up for some volunteer work or help your neighbour paint the house. 6. Don't waste. Anything, but specially energy that comes from natural non-renovable resources. Extra points if you discover or invent something to replace them. 7. Be tolerant. Everything that's good in nature comes from cooperation. The order is important, and the further you go the more Buena onda you are. Make the world a better place: be Buena onda.
Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:17:24PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 19 lines which said: I think -legal came to a very definite consensus that licensing the documentation under the exact same license as the program was always the right thing to do. I agree. In some countries (I checked for France), it is the default (the documentation of a software is regarded as software). It saves *so* much trouble. But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if I write a book Software development on Debian, releasing it under the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:08:23PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 15 lines which said: I write a book Software development on Debian, releasing it under the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do. Not if you want it to be part of Debian. It still works for the rest of the world which is large enough for my Wikipedia contributions (GFDL) and my lectures (GFDL too). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt]
There have been many debates on the freeness of IETF RFCs so here is an opportunity to influence it. ---BeginMessage--- A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Extracting RFCs Author(s) : S. Bradner Filename: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt Pages : 3 Date: 2005-7-8 Many people have expressed a desire to extract material from IETF RFCs for use in documentation, textbooks, on-line help systems, and for similar uses. In addition, some IETF RFCs contain MIBs and other types of program code that could be compiled. This document proposes an update to RFC RFC3978 to explicitly permit extracting material for a wide range of uses. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username anonymous and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type cd internet-drafts and then get draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt. A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body type: FILE /internet-drafts/draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt. NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the mpack utility. To use this feature, insert the command ENCODING mime before the FILE command. To decode the response(s), you will need munpack or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with multipart MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt ___ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce ---End Message---
Microsoft :-) Sender-ID Licence
The MARID Working Group of IETF (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/marid-charter.html) is close to settle on its Sender-ID protocol. Microsoft claims patents on some parts of Sender-ID (http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03495.html). Microsoft drafted a licence for those wishing to implement Sender-ID. I've found it small enough to be attached here but, otherwise, it is at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03496.html and has a FAQ at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03497.html. It is not common to have Microsoft licences in debian-legal :-) I do not send it here for a specific software but because the possibility of IETF standardizing a technology which depends on a patent with a non-free licence is worrying. I believe this licence is certainly GPL-incompatible and probably non-free. Other analyses of the licence: http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03500.html and http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03514.html. SenderID_License-Agreement.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document
Re: Microsoft :-) Sender-ID Licence
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 60 lines which said: On the other hand, I can't imagine how MS could have any valid patents on such a simple thing. So it's quite possible that the whole thing is a load of bull. It is clearly the crux of the problem. If the licence is unacceptable (many people think it is), what the IETF should do? 1) Go ahead and ignore what is probably a futile patent (like patents on hypertext or on encoding of a session ID in the URL). Problem: many implementors will fear to proceed in such an uncertain situation. 2) Drop everything which has a claim (not even a granted patent) on it. Problem: big companies owners like Microsoft therefore have a veto on what the IETF can standardize or not. And it's a bloody PDF. Keep cool, it could have been a MS-Word. (apt-get install xpdf pdftotext SenderID_License-Agreement.pdf)
Cronyx Tau-ISA obfuscated driver
Free/non-free? (Only an academic interest, I did not use this driver yet.) Cronyx Tau-ISA driver URL: http://www.cronyx.ru/hardware/wan.html Announced on a FreeBSD list: ctau(4) driver for Cronyx Tau-ISA was added. Cronyx Tau-ISA is family of synchronous WAN adapters with various set of interfaces such as V.35, RS-232, RS-530(449), E1 (both framed and unframed). This is a second family of Cronyx adapters that is supported by FreeBSD now. The first one was Cronyx Sigma-ISA, cx(4). Cronyx Tau-PCI family will become a third one. The peculiarity of this driver that it contains private code. This code is distributed as obfuscated source code with usual open source license agreement.Since code is protected by obfuscation it is satisfy needs of commerce. On the other hand it still stays a source code and thus it becomes closer to open source projects. I hope this form of private code distribution will become a real alternative to object form.
Re: FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
On Friday 26 September 2003, at 14 h 23, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compare: http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.ht= ml with: [ http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html ] Funny, FSF does not mention Debian or FreeBSD anymore, but it mentions VMS, Windows NT and BeOS (all of them free operating systems, as we know).
Re: Common software (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)
On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 10:41:33AM +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 22 lines which said: He, that's really a nice term. I like it at first sight much more than free software or open source software. (I'm a German, but may have read too many english books.) It is nice in French, too, and it carries the memory of many important historical events (La Commune was the name of the first elected public body in Paris during the French Revolution).
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:42:12PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 17 lines which said: Everything Debian distributes is software. After all, if it weren't, we wouldn't be able to store it in a FTP server, transmit it via the Internet or burn it in CDs. This was very often written in that thread but it is wrong. To be stored on a FTP server or burned on a CD, you just need to be digital. You do not need to be software. The Bible does not become software once you type it in vi or Emacs. [This confusion between software and digital seems very prevalent in Debian. I share Mathieu's regrets about it.]
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:00:55PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 27 lines which said: Let's imagine infinite scale with absolute freedom(liberty) on one side and absolute non-freedom on another. The border between free and non-free will be at 0. Interesting idea. Here is an extract from a recent discussion on a NetBSD mailing list about the freegrep tool (a BSD-licensed grep). Other people think that there are degrees in freedom, that it is not binary. Subject: Re: Free grep (was: Re: HTML browser) From: Jim Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Gary Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Does anyone else see the irony of free alternatives to GNU code This is an interesting development. There is nothing stopping anyone from fixing GNU tools and releasing them as alternatives: they would just have to be under the GPL. Irony? No. A key goal of the NetBSD project is not to tell people what they are allowed to do with our code. The GPL is not compatible with this desire, as it places very real restrictions on what someone can do with GPL'ed code. Code under the GPL is thus _substantially_ less free than code not so encumbered, and when we have the option of using less restrictively licensed code instead, we do so. -- Jim Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 06:20:32PM +1200, Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 68 lines which said: In the meantime I'll be content with the definition of software that WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) provides: n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation It should be noted that, in countries like France, where software and non-software-but-still-implemented-with-1-and-0s are treated differently (the author does not have the same right, wether he is a novelist or a programmer, even if he types both works on the same laptop), the same rule apply: the associated documentation is treated like the program. So, Emacs' info files or docstrings in languages like Python or Lisp are not really a problem, after all.
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:33:05PM -0500, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 102 lines which said: I will grant that these definitions are imperfect and improbable arguments could be lodged against them; at the same time, I believe that reasonable people not engaging in a Jesuit exercise to find logical needles in a haystack of common sense are able to tell the difference between a manpage and a C source file. aolI agree completely/aol. Legal issues are not binary, unlike what many computer scientist seem to believe. Laws are often not 0-and-1s, because they have to adapt to many real-world situations and they should not be too formal, otherwise, technological or social changes could make them obsolete a long time before the Parliament has any leisure to update them.
Re: a minimal copyleft
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:49:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 45 lines which said: This is why, when using the GPL for things which are not clearly program source code, you must always specify what the preferred form for modification is (append it to the license declaration, which should be just below the copyright declaration). This would be a serious limitation of freedom! If someone writes a free document in LinuxDoc/SGML and I translate it to DocBook/XML before modifying it, I violate the licence? [Do note that I mentioned only free formats and a realistic case.]
Re: a minimal copyleft
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:24:39AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 56 lines which said: I'm still keen to receive suggestions about how to improve either of my one-sentence licences. Thanks for the suggestions already received. I seriously doubt that you can write a good licence in one sentence. This is appealing, but unrealistic. Just one example: in France (and probably in most other countries with a droit d'auteur system), a free licence *must* enumerate exactly what rights you yield to the licencee. According to the few lawyers that studied the case (IANAL), the GPL is therefore OK, but the BSD-like licences are probably not.
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 07:13:41AM -0700, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 18 lines which said: There are more problems with the GFDL than just the invariant sections. Invariant sections are just the worst problem. Since RMS seems unwilling to change anything, I'd say that _all_ GFDL'd works have to go into non-free. I believe I understand at last the Invariant Sections and their consequences but can you explain what other problems are serious enough for such drastic measures? (Cover Texts excluded, because they have more or less the some problems.) I already asked the question here and it seems there is a consensus on that mailing list that a GFDL document without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts is 100 % free. See URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html for more details.
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:00:48AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 15 lines which said: Since there's been a lot of talk about the difficulty in making a distinction between software and non-software, do you know how the law you're referring to makes this distinction? Where would fonts, javascript embedded in html, latex source, postscript, etc, fit into this scheme? Tough question. I just studied it and here is the result (warning: most software engineers will not find the reply satisfactory, see the soap box). legalRemember, IANAL./legal First, the only pan-European text I can find is Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs URL:http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoclg=ennumdoc=31991L0250model=guichett. This directive, which every European Union country is supposed to implement, says only one thing which seems related to your question: Whereas, for the purpose of this Directive, the term 'computer program` shall include programs in any form, including those which are incorporated into hardware; whereas this term also includes preparatory design work leading to the development of a computer program provided that the nature of the preparatory work is such that a computer program can result from it at a later stage; It clearly does not address your problem. Let's turn now to French-specific law. There is no general definition of a program (see the soapbox later). The closest things we find are: * JONC, 17 janvier 1982, p. 624. A terminology document (French language is specified in the Journal Officiel, the paper which publishes laws and decrees...) which says that Logiciel [software]: L'ensemble des programmes, procédés et règles et éventuellement de la documentation, relatifs au fonctionnement d'un ensemble de traitement de l'information. * BODGI 4 C-7.84. A tax regulation about software which gives a definition (almost the same). In both cases, the associated documentation is mentioned (which seems that the case of the Emacs manual is settled: it is regarded as a program and hence not subject to the full extent of moral rights). The case of documentation embedded in a program (Lisp or Python docstrings) is also quite clear: it is part of the program. The case of a text outside of a program (such as a lecture on dynamic routing like URL:http://www.nic.fr/formation/supports/formation-routagedyn/ which is under the GFDL) is still open but it is clearly not software. The funny cases like a novel implemented as an ebook are still open. Soap box: law is not computer science. Most terms used in law are never defined somewhere. This is because, unlike programs, law is processed by humans, not by computers. And it is also because it needs to be flexible enough to cover future cases without requiring an update of the law (it would be ridiculous to write in law texts a list of technologies such as a list of file formats, for instance: it changes too fast).
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:47:12PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 14 lines which said: Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE are quite limited, even in Europe. Moral rights are excluded for software? I never said so (unless my typing is so bad that I wrote excluded when meaning limited). Can you please give me a citation for that? See my previous messages and the quotes from Mélanie Clément-Fontaine's analysis.
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:25:05AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 111 lines which said: Since changing the color of curtains violates the rights of an architect, it's hard to imagine any significant change to any piece of software that would not wreak similar harm to honor and reputation if the author decided to complain: That totally violates my original vision; it never occurred to me that anyone would so horribly damage my program, and bingo--license revoked. As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE are quite limited, even in Europe. Of course, many issues are still open: * what's the lawyer's definition of software, any way? * what about artistic work published under a GPL or GFDL licence? But your example is wrong: wether the author wants it or not, he cannot oppose a change in his/her program.
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:34:36PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 30 lines which said: Can you explain the above? I do not see why and in which way the Droit d'auteur system is more hostile to free software. Since you did not reply, I take the liberty, in order to stop further spreading of this FUD, to explain why there is no incompatibility between the droit d'auteur and the common law's copyright system. Background: IANAL but I studied the issue in depth and the legal opinions expressed here comply with the work done by real lawyers (references at the end). I'm French so I eat stinking cheese. My English is far from perfect, sorry. Definitions: Droit d'auteur (a French word meaning author's right) is commonly used to describe the legal system used in most Europe. Common law's copyright is commonly used to describe the legal system used in Great Britain and its former colonies. There is a lot of fighting, specially between the USA and the European Union, between these two systems. I will deal here only with the issue of free software. Differences: as far as free software is concerned, the big difference between the two systems seems to be that, under the Droit d'auteur, the author has a moral right which can *not* be waived or granted to anyone else. Such a moral right does not exist under common law's copyright. The author also has a right to exploit (financially or not) its work, and this exploitation right (droit patrimonial in French) can be granted to someone else (an employer, for instance). At first glance, it seems that this moral right could be a problem with free software licences where the author renounces to some of her rights. But it is not a real problem. Under the droit d'auteur, the author's right over *software* is quite limited, (unlike other work, such as books). For instance, she cannot object to a change in the software by the owner of the exploitation right. She only keeps the right to be identified (Software written by Sue Foobar) and a limited right to distribute her work. At least for the GPL, the author does not revokes any of the rights that he have under the droit d'auteur. See [clement 1999] Une obligation positive : Le respect du droit moral de l'auteur. So, there is no reason to oppose droit d'auteur and free software. On the contrary, there is currently a lot of lobbying in Europe and in the world against this Droit d'auteur system and this lobbying is mostly driven by the same companies that oppose free software... References: [clement 1999] Mélanie Clément-Fontaine La Licence Publique Générale GNU URL:http://crao.net/gpl/. The reference in French: the author concludes that the GPL (and probably other free software licences) is perfectly compatible with the French law, including the issue of droit d'auteur. [clement 2003] Mélanie Clément-Fontaine Pluralité et singularité des logiciels libres. With a different point of view, the same conclusion, extended to other licences. [sedallian 2002] Valérie Sédallian Garanties et responsabilités dans les logiciels libres URL:http://www.juriscom.net/pro/2/da20020901.htm
Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:40:22AM -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 58 lines which said: I strongly object: Great Britain and its former colonies are not the majority of the world, whatever your criteria (number of inhabitants, GNP, etc) are. I strongly object to your objection. The U.S., U.K., and other countries using the common law legal system are important enough within the domain of discussion (Free Software distributed by the Debian Project) to be granted consideration. I never said to ignore them. I objected to an argument from Nathanael Nerode saying in essence that the majority should prevail. Taking into account common law is fine. Deciding that common law should have the last word because of a (non-existing) majority is not. In any event, if non-common law countries have legal frameworks that technically render Free Software as conceived by the FSF and the Debian Project impossible, Pure FUD. See my rebuke of Nathanael Nerode's message that I just sent.
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 07:50:45PM +1200, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 42 lines which said: I guess the reason for that opposition is because it empowers the original, human, author in such a way that the large publishing company cannot possibly disenfranchise him by conning him into signing a particularly vicious contract when he desperately needs their money. Yes, and it seems to me a nice aim. This is why I oppose the common law copyright. Both the nasty big company and the nice free software distributors are at the mercy of the author's whim. I disagree. See the detailed message I just sent to debian-legal, with references.
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:43:24AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 74 lines which said: spreading of this FUD, to explain why there is no incompatibility between the droit d'auteur and the common law's copyright system. Our smart readers certainly fixed that by themselves. I wanted to write: there is no incompatibility between the droit d'auteur and free software. :-}
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:21:41PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 23 lines which said: We already have OT in the subject, so may I ask whether this moral right ceases with the death of the author, For non-software, it was 50 years after the death of the author, it is now 70 (corporations lobbied a lot for that). For software, I'm not sure. or whether a hostile descendent can use it to prevent reproduction of the author's work? Unfortunately, yes and it already happened. That 70-years rule is a big problem. contract that tries to do so is unenforceable. However, presumably that doesn't stop company X from paying a certain sum every month to the author with the understanding that payments will cease if the author tries to assert her moral rights, or the company not suing the author so long as the author doesn't assert her moral rights. And the Mafia can shoot you if you do not do what they want. Every legal system has such limits. cases there is no contract that needs to be enforced by the courts, so any attempt by the legal system to prevent the moral right from being waived through contract law is bound to fail. This is clearly wrong: authors win in court against their employers often.
Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 33 lines which said: ?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of the invariant or cover options are exercised. Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed in main?
Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:47:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 50 lines which said: Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur system, perhaps. ... Under the system used in the majority of the world, I strongly object: Great Britain and its former colonies are not the majority of the world, whatever your criteria (number of inhabitants, GNP, etc) are.
[OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
[This is starting to shift away from the GFDL so I modified the subject. Georg, I can suppress you from the Cc: if you wish so.] On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:25:43PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 29 lines which said: Naturally, I'm more familiar with the European Copyright -- or Droit d'Auteur, rather -- systems, but since Europe is a very active region for Free Software, considering the European situation seems useful. Please note that this system is contrary in its basis to the system in the US, which is also used in some form in most common-law based countries (most of the world). Under these systems copyright is a government-granted monopoly and not a 'natural right'. The 'Droit d'Auteur' system is *much* more hostile to free software, free documentation, free speech, fair use rights, library privilege, the public domain, etc., etc., etc. Can you explain the above? I do not see why and in which way the Droit d'auteur system is more hostile to free software. There is currently a lot of lobbying in Europe and in the world against this Droit d'auteur system and pro-copyright and this lobbying is mostly driven by the same companies that oppose free software...
Incremental revisions (Was: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 42 lines which said: RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC documents. They say Do it like this, except for this, this, and this. No, that's generally only done for tiny changes: Adding a bit here or there, etc. For large changes, the old document is obsoleted and the relevant portions included into the new one. Any other way would be insane! Therefore, the IETF is insane often :-) Take the DNS, for instance, RFC 1034 and 1035 were never obsoleted (while many parts of them are) and, to take your example, in order to understand the DNS, you have to read several RFC, some updating or obsoleting others.
Re: Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 25 lines which said: * Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this license. Can you actually write this section and post it here? Because I have a practical problem: finding a free licence for an important documentation I'm currently writing (and one which is not included in a specific software) and, after getting a headache from reading hundreds of previous postings in debian-legal, I still have difficulties to find a proper licence. Practical advices are welcome. I believe it is easier to bash the GFDL than to write a proper alternative.
Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb, autonotification in dupload
On Friday 9 March 2001, at 20 h 52,
the keyboard of Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On an additional note, would Stephane Bortzmeyer accept a patch that causes
dupload to mail a copy of the upload to a list of email addresses before it
is uploaded? It could be used, for example, to automagically mail a copy to
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
With hooks (see dupload's man page), you don't need a patch.
$cfg{'ftp-master'}{preupload}{'package'} = 'Mail -s %1 uploaded [EMAIL
PROTECTED] /dev/null';
Re: Java 1.3
On Friday 2 March 2001, at 11 h 27, the keyboard of Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question on java. All these questions have answers in the Debian/Java FAQ : http://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals#java-faq
Re: ia64 port
On Thursday 25 May 2000, at 23 h 40, the keyboard of Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SourceForge now has 3 ia64 boxes, and they are letting people submit proposals to get access to them to port stuff. You have to a registered user of SourceForge. Not a big deal but I prefer to mention it. I suggest we submit a proposal to port Debian base. ;-) What do people think? And there is a legal problem first. What do people on debian-legal think of the agreement you have to sign: OPEN-SOURCE CLICKWRAP IPLA Intel would like to invite you to participate in Intel's efforts to prepare software targeted for the Linux operating system running on the Intel(R) Itanium(tm) processor by providing you access to software created by Intel and its licensors and related documentation and materials (the Intel Software) and Intel supplied equipment (Intel Equipment) under the following terms and conditions: 1. To the extent that you are using software that is not supplied by Intel and/or its licensors such as the Linux operating system and the GCC compiler, this Agreement has no effect on your rights and your use of that software is subject to the applicable license such as the Gnu General Public License or other applicable license. 2. This license to use the Intel Software and Intel Equipment is being provided to you royalty-free, in consideration of your adherence to the other terms and conditions of this license. You may distribute software that you create (Your Software) using this equipment through any distribution scheme you wish to use, including distributing Your Software under an open source license agreement such as the Gnu General Public License or distributing binaries of Your Software for a fee and subject to a different license. 3. You may modify portions of the Intel Software provided by Intel as sample source code and incorporate such sample source or modified portions thereof into your programs and may distribute Your Software incorporating sample source code or modifications thereof under any license agreement of your choosing. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, license or disassemble portions of any Intel Software provided in object code form. 4. Since the Intel Equipment that you are using is pre-release hardware and incorporates pre-release software and is configured to permit multiple people to test code on the equipment, this equipment will not generate reliable benchmarking data. I understand that no reliable benchmarking data can be generated on the Intel Equipment. Therefore, you agree that you will not disclose publicly or share with any third party any benchmarks generated using the Intel Equpment and/or Intel Software. 5. The Intel Software provided in binary form contains confidential information of Intel regarding technical aspects of the Itanium processor. You must use the same degree of care to protect this confidential information of Intel that you use to protect your own confidential information, but no less than a reasonable degree of care. You must restrict access to the Intel Software provided in binary form to your employees who have executed written agreements with you obligating them to protect confidential information as required under this paragraph. The obligations of this paragraph do not apply to any information that is or becomes published by Intel without restriction, or otherwise becomes rightfully available to the public other than by breach of confidentiality obligation to Intel. 6. THE SOFTWARE AND EQUIPMENT IS PROVIDED BY INTEL AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL INTEL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 7. You may provide to Intel additional feedback regarding the Intel Software and/or the Intel Equipment, including suggested
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Wednesday 15 March 2000, at 15 h 32, the keyboard of Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, there is no advertised interface for piping. (a pipe is just a byte stream). So piping between GPL and not-GPL-compatible is OK, but Corba (which uses an IDL file) or popen (which uses the documented usage) is not?
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 23 h 6, the keyboard of Fabien Ninoles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a good example. IMHO, even if I consider such a client not free (because it depends on a non-free server), the client itself is considered DFSG compliant. In this specific case, I was mostly interested by the GPL (is it legal or is it a violation of the GPL) and not by the DFSG. making a library link is close enough to be considered a true dependance but every other communication link are simply fair use of the program. OK, but I've not found this distinction, this line you draw, in the GPL. This lead to some problem where you can use a GPL library if you put a GPL scripting interface over it and use the script interface in a non-GPL program. ... which let you say that such a program is free if it achieve all its functionalities without depending on any non-free components. Bad criteria, since it depends on a third party. Let's assume I write a not-GPL-compatible interface whose sole purpose is to run a program. It popens a GPL program. It is illegal. Now, someone else, unrelated with me, write a command-line-compatible non-GPL program and suddenly my interface is legal?
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Thursday 16 March 2000, at 14 h 17, the keyboard of Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think exactly the opposite: It doesn't matter if you use piping, linking, exec() or whatever. Surely, we must have a limit somewhere! If I write a GPL HTTP server, I certainly want the not-GPL-compatible browsers to be able to legally query it.
[GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
[Please Cc: me the replies, i'm not on the list.] We all know that the GPL prevents linking with proprietary stuff (see the KDE/Qt thread). And we all take this for granted. Looking for the precised wording, I was very surprised to be unable to find it. Where in the GPL is such restriction written? I just find this line at the end, in How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs where I wouldn't have search: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. [Where is it written? S. B.] If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License.
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 8 h 54, the keyboard of SCOTT FENTON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Section 2b is the viral clause and it reads as follows: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. It is not very clear from Section 2b that linking makes a program GPL-infected, and dynamic linking too (see the rms/Torvalds discussion about binary modules in the Linux kernel) but not popen() or system() (see the discussion about the apt tool by Corel which popens dpkg).
Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 10 h 6, the keyboard of Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's not be silly here. ... I'm tired of hearing about it. Brian, I wasn't trying to raise a flamewar, and I absolutely agree with your analysis. I was just motivated by: - pure curiosity (everybody says so, but is it true?), - practical limits (a friend of mine created a company to sell an on-line game; they want to release the client as GPL and not the server; they wonder if it's legal, since these two programs are not linked, they are just connected by the network).
ATT source licence?
[Please CC: the replies, i'm not on the list.] It seems there exists an ATT source licence and at least one software I'm interested in is under this licence. Does anyone know it? It seems clearly non-free, but not too much non-free :-} http://www.brics.dk/DSD/implementation.html
Re: ATT source licence?
On Sat 3 March 2000, at 15 h 52, the keyboard of Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: interested in is under this licence. Does anyone know it? It seems clearly non-free, but not too much non-free :-} We have discussed it before. A list of non-free licences, as well as the reasons they are non-free could be useful. rms would certainly blame us to advertise non-freeness, but it could be useful. Any kind of nonfreeness is too much. I agree it is for the non-free archive. But does anyone see a larger problem, which would prevent it to get into Debian?
Re: [DOM Java bindings] Can a W3C recommandation be free?
On Sunday 7 November 1999, at 16 h 31, the keyboard of Mark Wielaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That copyright notice seems to apply only to the DOM specification itself. Not to the actual Java source files. OK, I missed that point. Please make sure that you get the latest Java language bindings from the errata page http://www.w3.org/DOM/updates/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001-errata.html. Thanks. Unfamiliar with W3C's procedures, I missed that update. That Software Notice can be found on http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html and seems to me to be free according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. I agree. Then, lib-dom-java will go to main. Many thanks for the explanations. Please also read their W3C Intellectual Property FAQ which has a special section on W3C software: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ.html#Software Which is very clear, and very free.
Re: [DOM Java bindings] Can a W3C recommandation be free?
On Friday 5 November 1999, at 15 h 20, the keyboard of Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which means that the interface may be essential to the compilation of other software. Which, hence, means that if I want to change that other software I might have either to change the interfaces It is may be possible to fork the W3C API, as long as you change the name and make clear that it is no longer the official one. I'll ask W3C people about that. PS: I've noticed doc-html-w3, which has the same authors and same copyright, is in non-free. If I put lib-dom-java in non-free, xt will have to move in contrib and we'll lose our only XSL processor :-(
SUMMARY: Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken
On Friday 2 July 1999, at 18 h 4, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jikes belongs to IBM, so they'll may be change their licence This is quite likely. I don't know if they did. Let's wait the opinion of the Jikes maintainer. And, as Nicolas reminded us, Jikes depends (really depends) on JDK's classes, so even if IBM changes the licence, Jikes will go to contrib and brings all the Java programs of Debian with it :-( So, should we move *every* Java package to 'contrib'? If IBM doesn't re-license Jikes. I've update the proposed Java policy in that respect. Almost all of the Java stuff shuld go into contrib (because most of them fail to compile with guavac or to run with kaffe) and I'll fill in bug reports for that. http://www.debian.org/~bortz/Java/policy.html
Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken
[Cross-posted to debian-java and debian-legal because it is both a Java-specific problem and a legal/political one.] I maintain several Java packages whose licence make them eligible for 'main'. But I assume (the Policy seems silent on this point, but my assumption seems reasonable) that, to be really free, a package has to: - be compiled with free tools, - be able to run only with free tools. As you know, this is not easy to get with Java. The two compilers we have, JDK and Jikes, are non-free (I exclude guavac, which is orphaned, both upstream and in Debian). Jikes belongs to IBM, so they'll may be change their licence, like they did with Postix, but Jikes depends on the JDK, anyway. In the mean time, we have no Java free compilers. A Java compiler produces bytecode (some compilers produce native codes, but I don't think any of them is distributable, even in non-free). To actualy run this bytecode, you need a Java virtual machine. We have two of them, JDK (non-free) and kaffe, which is free, but whose list of bugs http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/pa/lkaffe.html is quite desperating. Worse, despite the hype on Java portability, it is quite common that programs compile only with a specific compiler, or runs only with a specific virtual machine. So, should we move *every* Java package to 'contrib'?
Re: Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken
On Friday 2 July 1999, at 8 h 10, the keyboard of Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If they have been compiled with guavac and they'll run on kaffe then, These two packages are not (yet?) usable for any practical work. Who compiles its Java packages with guavac? Runs its production Java packages on kaffe?
Qt 2.0 is out, with its new licence
http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html http://www.troll.no/free-license.html So, can anyone who followed the discussion summarizes if it is free or not, now that it is the official licence? At first glance, I would say no, since it is not possible to modify Qt.
Re: DFSG And Trademarks
On Friday 18 June 1999, at 0 h 41, the keyboard of Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The code itself is GPL, so DFSG compliance isn't a problem. However, the vendors have trademarked the words CUPS, Common UNIX Printing System, and possibly a few others I'm forgetting. The license page (http://www.cups.org/LICENSE.html) has this gem: Also, since we have trademarked the Common UNIX Printing System, CUPS, and CUPS logo, you may not release a derivative product using those names without permission from Easy Software Products. I believe that several packages in main have a licence which forces any modified version to use another name. (TeX is a typical example.) This is not itself a violation of DFSG (it is even explicitely authorized in article 4), IMHO. In practice, if you fork and start a new CUPS, with the same code base, you will not want to use the same name, anyway.
Intent to package: Puzzle ([Biology] Reconstruction of phylogenetic trees)
[Please Cc: my personal address, I'm far from my normal mail and have difficulties reading Debian lists.] [Cc: to debian-legal because there is a small legal problem. Advices about it should go to debian-legal, not debian-devel.] I intent to package the Puzzle program, which is a biology program to reconstruct phylogenetic trees by maximum likelihood. It is recent and seems quite often quoted. The Web page is http://members.tripod.de/korbi/puzzle/. No technical difficulties, no funny dependencies. Puzzle's licence is GPL (details in the distribution). BUT: The whole package is licenced under the GNU public licence, except for the parts indicated in the sources where the copyright of the authors does not apply. Grepping through the source code, I find no place where there is a copyright other than the authors (which agree with the Debian packaging, but did not give me the names of these phantom authors). I assume I can go on with GPL.
What does free means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos
[Thread sent to debian-legal.] On Monday 29 March 1999, at 21 h 31, the keyboard of Dragon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? : Not programs licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or altered? : Does this mean we have to move the GPL out of main? ; The GPL (and the DFSG, by the way) stands for software. For other stuff (documentation, literary work, art, standards, licences themselves), it is not obvious that free has the same meaning. And it is not obvious that the GPL is the best licence for these. Remember the discussion on debian-legal a few days ago about the W3C standards? It makes sense to limit modifications on a standard. At the very least, if you modify and redistribute the GPL, it makes sense to force you to use another name... which the GPL does not require for software.
Re: UW gave permission for PINE
On Tuesday 2 March 1999, at 11 h 14, the keyboard of Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian is dedicated to free software and it is not in the business of asking permission to distribute non-free apps. Excuse me? Since many non-free packages require a special clearance to have a Debian distribution at all: Please, do not ask them for this permission *in the name of Debian*. This means we can cut non-free in two. Mirror managers will love it :-) I personnaly often asked for distribution clearances (almost all biology packages are non-free, #ifndef RMS if we want Debian to succeed in that field, non-free is an essential part of Debian #endif ). If you want to do something for Debian with respect to pine, please ask them to change the license instead. Don't you think we do? But the author decides. If they don't want to change the licence and if the licence requires a special permission for any distribution, yes, I ask for it, and I say I am a Debian developer and I say this is for Debian.
[HUMOR?] A licence for sources only
Found in a package: -- --- Distribution terms CDda is distributed under the terms of the NPNWPL licence. Basicaly this licence is the second version GNU Public License modified by the following terms: - The program can't be distributed in a packetized form (RPMs, DEBs, etc.). - The program can't be distributed in binary except if it is part of a non optionnal operating system installation. - The program can't be ported, compiled, executed, stored on/in any computer running Microsoft operating systems or any other product sold by this company or it's subsidiaries.
