Re: game screenshots with incompatibly licensed content
Martin Erik Werner, 2013-01-16 17:15+0100 (gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal): However, what struck me as a problem here are screenshots, videos, etc. showing the game and the art content in it. A screenshot showing both a CC-BY-SA-3.0 texture and a GPL texture would be a derivative work of both pieces of content, and in that case said screenshot would be undistributable, since the licenses are incompatible. I am not sure. Is it a derivative of the content? I think the question is the same as: is a picture of a monument a derivative of that monument? You may want to ask wikipedians about that. Is it a derivative of the code? I doubt it, I see the code as being the tool that allowed the shooter to generate the image, just as GIMP or a paint brush would be. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu | `-'Debian Developer irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy \_ -- 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/kd6mi0$rls$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: meaning license statement
Bernhard R. Link, 2012-06-04 11:05+0200 (gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal): Anyway, reading this as plan English language, it says Use [...] by the Government is subject [...]. It's the Government (with upper case G), so I'd say it only means the US government. So it has no meaning to anyone else and for the US government it is about rules set by thatself, so this should not not be a problem for Debian at all. Is that so? Does that not discriminate against one group, the US government? I do not know what this documents says, but imagine something like that: This program is is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License. If you are a member of the US Army, the following restriction applies in addition to the GPL: you must not use this program for a weapon system. That would be completley non-free, would it no? -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jqkjho$m1u$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Third party code license issue
Adam Sampson, 2012-03-08 13:29+0100: Medhamsh m...@medhamsh.org writes: “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” That's the JSON license, which has been discussed here before -- have a look at bug #585468, #585470 or #602250 for other examples. That is right. By the way, this license is also considered non-free by the FSF because it conflicts with freedom 0: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jjahiu$ca6$2...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Third party code license issue
Paul Elliott, 2012-03-04 09:37+0100: But because of nihilism of our times, the courts are unlikely to interpret Good and Evil. The clause should be taken as an exhortation rather than a legal requirement. In our times, those who favor Good over Evil should be encouraged rather than discouraged. They should be given every benefit of doubt. Since that clause uses the verb “shall”, it is intended as an obligation. If it is too vague, or too whatever to be usable in a court, then it is just a very bad one. If the goal was to encourage people to do Good, or to send a postcard to the author, or to sacrifice a goose, then their would be no problem writing something like: The Software should be used for Good, not for Evil. You are encouraged to send a postcard to the Author. The Author would be pleased if you sacrificed a goose. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jiveri$tk5$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
Jérémy Lal, 2012-01-24 01:55+0100: I will, and concur. But knowing upstream i can tell he'll need stronger arguments. The 3-clause BSD license would seem to be appropriate considering what the author apparently wants. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- 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/jfmjul$3se$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment
Kay Hayen, 2012-01-06 11:27+0100: I would expect, and encourage, people to fork the work and maintain it with the same license for all parties, without any such contributor agreement. I would normally agree with such stance. But why would one have the goal to keep Nuitka under GPLv3 for long, and if the main contributors and about everybody else won't have it either? For what I see, the right question would rather be: why would one have the goal to distribute Nuitka under GPL for a while, and then switch to Apache? I mean, honestly, your goal is weird, so seing someone fork it to maintain it under the GPL would seem pretty normal in comparison. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/je6ree$t21$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment
Christofer C. Bell, 2012-01-05 17:18+0100: Would it be possible to have, instead, a contributor agreement that allows contributors to retain copyright while at the same time granting you a non-transferable, non-revokable, exclusive right to relicense their contribution under the ASF2.0 license at a time of your choosing? If, as I said, you are thinking about a project management solution, good, because in order to avoid license proliferation and legal questionning by every single distributor, I think it would be better and safer to stay with the unmodified GPL and not add that kind of thing to the license itself. Now, given that you are the main author, which means that, without your code, contributions would be unusable, I think there is an even easier way to achieve the same purpose in practice: simply ask contributors to license their changes under the ASF. Since the GPL is considered as a superset of the ASF, that means: * you, and noone else, would be able to relicense your code under the GPL; * anyone would be able to relicense contributed code under the GPL. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that you are trying to avoid that anyone would be able to relicense your project until you relicense it yourself when you see fit. Since, as I said, you are the main author and the project would be unusable without your code, I think this goal would be achieved with that mean. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/je4lei$r7f$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment
Kay Hayen, 2012-01-05 19:53+0100: I would make it say something like this: # If you (not Kay Hayen) submit patches So far, this is a contributor agreement. # or make the software # available to licensors of this software in either form, But here you are starting to add on the license, taking high risks of making it non-free and requiring analysis by all the potential distributors. # you # automatically them grant them a transferable, non-revokable, # right to relicense the new part of the code to ASF 2.0 unless # you remove this notice before doing so. Then everybody is equal, except me opting out hard coded, so I don't fall into question, of having it not pointed out. No need to except yourself: I do not see any problem in you requiring yourself to give yourself a right to relicense your own code. :-) Legally, it would appear like dual licensing, right? I do not think so. Dual licensing is usually understood as: pick the license of your choice. Here, it rather sounds like a contributor agreement: if you want to contribute, allow me to relicense your code under the ASF. Honestly, I think it would be simpler to as add a simple comment stating that you wish to relicense it later, and for that reason ask your contributors to license their work under AFS rather than GPL if they want you to integrate their work. As I described before, I do not think that has any undesired effect in practice. I think you should want to avoid making any modification to the license at all, and adding a requirement for redistribution is such a modification. Adding a requirement for contribution, that is having a policy for integrating contributed work is fine as far as I know, and has been used in many projects, mostly in the form of copyright assignment. But you should be aware that this may discourage some contributors. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- 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/je4sgo$nd5$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: copyright law wackyness
Paul Wise, 2011-12-23 06:51+0100: In Slovakia apparently license grants have to be in writing […] Just to be sure, what exactly does “in writing” mean? Does it mean “written with ink on paper made of tree wood or carved in stone” or something like that which would exclude any electric or magnetic coding? -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Elessar | `-'Debian Maintainer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jd230d$qt3$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: copyright law wackyness
Paul Wise, 2011-12-23 07:33+0100: The other part is less clear to me and it refers to contracts rather than licenses, but the document author seems to think it applies to the GPL. I always saw licenses as contracts between an author an licensees, by which the author grants them some rights that would otherwise be a monopoly of him. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Elessar | `-'Debian Maintainer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jd234t$qt3$2...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Are Web-API packages need to be in the 'main' repo ?
Alexey Eromenko, 2011-12-18 17:24+0100: Let me tell you about the risks we face, we non-free, web-dependent software stays in 'main' repo: 1. More FOSS developers will use it for derivative works (KDE/GNOME-facebook login) 2. One day it will become mandatory to even login into your desktop (Google OS is clearly moving in this direction) I would like to avoid such fate. I mostly agree, but I was only replying to what I saw as a misuse of the desert island test. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Elessar | `-'Debian Maintainer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jcn2mm$rmu$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Are Web-API packages need to be in the 'main' repo ?
Jeff Epler, 2011-12-16 16:29+0100: I don't think that the desert island thought experiment has anything to do with web services. The purpose of the desert island test is to show why software like postcardware (send me a postcard if you use my software) is not Free Software. I would say that in another way. There is a difference between a postcardware (or any close concept, such as “you must send me your modifications”) and a piece of software meant to use a network service. In the former case, you are forbidden to exercise your rights on your desert island; in the latter you have the right to do so, only the software will be pointless in such an environment. For instance, reportbug is a free tool to use the BTS. It is of no use on a desert island, but I do not think that makes it non free. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Elessar | `-'Debian Maintainer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jcfpno$h9m$1...@dough.gmane.org
Open Database License (ODbL)
Hello, I wonder whether the Open Database Licence (ODbL) [1] can be considered as a free license according to the DFSG. This license, designed for open data, aims at being free, in its spirit. [1] http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ I do not think it is much used as of today, but the OpenStreetMap (OSM) project, which is a collaborative and free map project of the entire world, is considering to switch from CC-BY-SA 2.0 to the ODbL 1.0 [2]. I do not know if there is some OSM data in Debian, but it is a very important piece of free data, valuable to anyone, so it would be a shame if they switched to a buggy license. [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL Regards, -- Tanguy Ortolo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Licence of the Debian Open Use L ogo with “Debian” text
Hello, I wonder if there is not a problem with the Debian Open Use Logo with “Debian” from http://www.fr.debian.org/logos/index.en.html. Although the Debian Open Use Logo without “Debian” is released under a license that seems clearly free, the Logo with “Debian” is released under a very unclear tiny “license”: Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. To me, that means that it can only be used to refer to Debian. The “does not indicate…” part rather looks like a precision of an evidence that is not linked specifically to the license (that is, of course, nobody except people authorized by the project to do so can indicate endorsement by the project, Logo or not Logo). As it does not indicate whether the Logo can be used for other things, or modified, or redistributed, and so on, I wonder if this “license” can be considered as free. In addition, I heard that the “Debian” text has been designed with a non-free font, so distributing it may constitute an violation of the licence, though I think this is rather the problem of the original designer that licenced his logo artwork to SPI. If it cannot, this may be a serious issue, as this Logo with “Debian”, or derivated work, is used in many packages. For instance, gdm and gdm-themes are released under GPLv2 but provide images that contain it. Regards, -- Tanguy Ortolo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
