Re: IBM CPL v1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean: may I be an anonymous Contributor? Being forced to disclose my own real identity is a significant restriction: it would render software under the CPL non-free (because it's a fee, see DFSG#1). This is in no way a fee. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean: may I be an anonymous Contributor? Being forced to disclose my own real identity is a significant restriction: it would render software under the CPL non-free (because it's a fee, see DFSG#1). This is in no way a fee. I concur that it's not a fee[0]. Regardless, a requirement to disclose one's real identity does fail the Dissident test and is thus non-free. URL:http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident [0] I do feel that an individual's private information is effectively a valuable property that can be traded at the individual's discretion in pieces for other things of value. -- \Beware of and eschew pompous prolixity. -- Charles A. | `\ Beardsley | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regardless, a requirement to disclose one's real identity does fail the Dissident test and is thus non-free. URL:http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident #import Marco.rant/the-tests-have-no-basis-in-DFSG I suspect they do, but I've not found it myself yet. I concur that it's not a fee[0]. [0] I do feel that an individual's private information is effectively a valuable property that can be traded at the individual's discretion in pieces for other things of value. How do you conclude that having to give valuable property to the licensor is not a fee? I'm undecided on both of these points. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regardless, a requirement to disclose one's real identity does fail the Dissident test and is thus non-free. This dissident test is not part of the DFSG, so it cannot make something non-free. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] I concur that it's not a fee[0]. [0] I do feel that an individual's private information is effectively a valuable property that can be traded at the individual's discretion in pieces for other things of value. How do you conclude that having to give valuable property to the licensor is not a fee? I don't think fee should be defined so broadly as to include obligation to surrender something that could theoretically have a monetary value to someone. -- \Hercules Grytpype-Thynne: Well, Neddie, I'm going to be | `\ frank. Ned Seagoon: Right, I'll be Tom. Count Moriarty: | _o__)I'll be Gladys. *slap* -- The Goon Show, _World War I_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
Hello, In the spirit of Enrico's talk: where does the license ask for your _real_ identity? Alle Monday 12 June 2006 11:23, Ben Finney ha scritto: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is in no way a fee. I concur that it's not a fee[0]. /me nods Regardless, a requirement to disclose one's real identity does fail the Dissident test and is thus non-free. Well this is a point I do not agree on, but does it actually matter? The text as quoted says: | Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its | Contribution, if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent | Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution. Besides the fact that I think 'Contributor' is more intended to mean 'company' then 'person' I see no 'real identity' in there. A semi-permanent email address or a website would suffice, in any case you already have to do this for clause 3.A.iv: | iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such | Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner | on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange. Much like in the GPL. I see no passport verification step here ;-). Groetjes, Peter -- signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/ God, root, what is difference? Pitr | God is more forgiving. Dave Aronson| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
* Francesco Poli: I mean: may I be an anonymous Contributor? Being forced to disclose my own real identity is a significant restriction: it would render software under the CPL non-free (because it's a fee, see DFSG#1). On the other hand, being able to identify all contributors is vital for reviewing the copyright status of a program, should there be any doubt or copyright infringement claims. Programs with an unclear copyright situation cannot be considered free, IMHO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the other hand, being able to identify all contributors is vital for reviewing the copyright status of a program, should there be any doubt or copyright infringement claims. Programs with an unclear copyright situation cannot be considered free, IMHO. I disagree, at the extreme. If it's *provably* so unclear that no-one can enforce a copyright over it, then it's effectively in the public domain and so free. However, you are far more likely to hit 'lawyerbomb' than 'free' and it's better to try to clarify. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:40:09 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is the IBM Common Public Licence version 1.0 (below) considered DFSG-free? We have software under this licence in main already, notably postfix and graphviz. The license has been discussed explicitly on debian-legal at least once [1] and no flaws big enough to cause it to be considered non-free were discovered. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00297.html For my attempt to summarize the 2005 discussion, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00847.html Wait! I re-read that thread and then reviewed the license text. I think I spotted a pair of issues that weren't noticed back in January 2005... Firstoff, the CPL states (at the end of section 3.): | Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its | Contribution, if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent | Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution. Does this mean that a Contributor is required to disclose his/her own real identity in order to exercise the rights granted by the license? I mean: may I be an anonymous Contributor? Being forced to disclose my own real identity is a significant restriction: it would render software under the CPL non-free (because it's a fee, see DFSG#1). Secondly, the last two sentences of the license are: | No party to this Agreement will bring a legal action under this | Agreement more than one year after the cause of action arose. Each | party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation. Why cannot I bring a legal action more than one year after the cause of action? This could mean that an infringer will practically become statute-barred after one year, even if the applicable laws say otherwise. I don't see this as fair... Moreover and more concerning: why am I required to waive my rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation? This seems to be a sort of fee (DFSG#1). The patent self-destruct feature of the license is quite restrained and is within what we generally consider fair self-defense. I agree. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpysNEvUKKl3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IBM CPL v1
Scripsit Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is the IBM Common Public Licence version 1.0 (below) considered DFSG-free? We have software under this licence in main already, notably postfix and graphviz. The license has been discussed explicitly on debian-legal at least once [1] and no flaws big enough to cause it to be considered non-free were discovered. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00297.html For my attempt to summarize the 2005 discussion, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00847.html The patent self-destruct feature of the license is quite restrained and is within what we generally consider fair self-defense. -- Henning Makholm... it cannot be told in his own words because after September 11 he forgot about keeping his diary for a long time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
