Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] STIX Fonts Beta Test Version Ready for Download

2007-11-01 Thread John Halton
On 01/11/2007, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/1/07, STIX Fonts Project Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here are the licence terms from the download page. It seems to be OK > for non-free. Clause 4 seems like it isn't a full modification clause, > Any thoughts on it? I'm no expert

Re: Eduardo Chappa's comments about his (al)pine patches

2007-11-01 Thread John Halton
On 31/10/2007, Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "I myself do not care what people do with the patch as > long as they don't claim ownership." As has been pointed out in the bug report thread, it would be better for all concerned if the author could just come out with a slightly more pos

Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] STIX Fonts Beta Test Version Ready for Download

2007-11-01 Thread John Halton
On 01/11/2007, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me that the license does not allow modifications to the base > set of glyphs (not even through patch files for the source code, with > the explicit permission to distribute what is built from modified source > code). > IMHO, thi

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-06 Thread John Halton
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:38:39PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > mkisofs is GPL but uses CDDL library code. This is intentionally > allowed by the GPL as the GPL is a highly asymmetric license. The > GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows > non-GPL code to appear in

Re: GPL 3 and derivatives

2007-11-06 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:14AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed > > work or create a derivative work to read and understand his > > countries copyright laws? > > The FSF doesn't exp

Re: GPL 3 and derivatives

2007-11-06 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 05:45:17PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Welcome, John (I've not seen you post here before this week). It's > great to see a qualified legal expert here among all we amateurs. > > Questions of interest to me and perhaps others on this list, that you > can nevertheless choose n

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-07 Thread John Halton
On 07/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > GPL forbids GPL code to > > > appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL > > > projects. As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code th

Re: GPL 3 and derivatives

2007-11-07 Thread John Halton
On 07/11/2007, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First time I've seen TINLA used with IAAL instead of IANAL. Well, really it's the IAALs who need to worry about making that clear more than the IANALs. > :) Hello John, nice to meet you. Thanks for the welcome. :-) Incidentally, are

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-07 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 03:57:18PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > On 11/7/07, John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > I'd be interested to know which "lawyer statements" you are referring > > to (genuine question - feel free to mail me the de

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-08 Thread John Halton
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:21:25PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > On 11/8/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to > > > appea

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-08 Thread John Halton
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:44:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > On 11/8/07, John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > Of course, that still leaves the question of whether the CDDL code is > > being used in such a way that the GPL would require it to be li

Re: virtual box

2007-11-09 Thread John Halton
What Stephen said. It may suggest a degree of ambivalence towards the *spirit* of the GPL, but it doesn't affect the legal position. Ditto the irritating 'please register this product' box that appears when you install or upgrade vbox. John On 09/11/2007, Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The v

Re: [debian-legal] The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-09 Thread John Halton
Yes, I apologised to Joerg at one point for cc-ing him as well as the list and he said that's what he wanted anyway. John On 09/11/2007, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:27:55 +1100, Ben Finney > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >For those following along with this threa

Re: virtual box

2007-11-09 Thread John Halton
The box popped up on my last upgrade (to 1.5.2). Perhaps I should file it as a bug. I know it doesn't make the software non-free; it's just a bit jarring in the context of a free system. On 09/11/2007, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * John Halton: > > &g

Re: binary only files in orig.tar.gz of mozilla products on debian

2007-11-10 Thread John Halton
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:23:51PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > Apologies if this is the wrong place to report this. I'm reporting this > here only because I thought this is also the place to bring to notice legal > problems in Debian. Should I file a Debian bug? Have you checked the conten

Re: Policy on Binary Firmware Fetching in Main (e.g. foo2zjs)

2007-11-10 Thread John Halton
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:32:08AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > the first is that packages in main should not have any dependencies > on non-free software. however, debian policy is not entirely clear > on the issue. section 2.2.1 says "... the packages in main must not > require a package outsi

Re: DFSG-freeness of any license that fixes the ASP loophole

2007-11-10 Thread John Halton
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without > being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in > Debian and Ubuntu ultimately). I suspect it'll be necessary to wait for the final version of

Re: DFSG-freeness of any license that fixes the ASP loophole

2007-11-10 Thread John Halton
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 +0000 John Halton wrote: > > One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL, > > which is prohibited by the GPL itself. > > This is not really the case. > A

Re: The legality of wodim

2007-11-10 Thread John Halton
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 09:01:48PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > This is where the concept of moral rights comes from. US copyright > law doesn't recognize moral rights (except for some limited cases > like sculptures) but European author's rights are strong on > moral rights. > > Regardless

Re: DFSG-freeness of any license that fixes the ASP loophole

2007-11-11 Thread John Halton
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem. I'm inclined to agree (though open to persuasion otherwise). There seem to be two main positions one could take on this: 1.One could argue that objections to the ASP "loopho

Re: The legality of wodim

2007-11-11 Thread John Halton
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Otherwise, if moral rights are *that* restrictive, it may be > *impossible* (for software developed in jurisdictions with so strong > moral rights) to really comply with DFSG#5 and DFSG#6, since, > despite whatever the license may st

Re: DFSG-freeness of any license that fixes the ASP loophole

2007-11-11 Thread John Halton
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:55:53AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked with > carets. > > When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be directly > or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provid

Re: DFSG-freeness of any license that fixes the ASP loophole

2007-11-11 Thread John Halton
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:46:16PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > Anyway, I feel you miss the point where someone who licenses their > software under a license with an ASP-fix clause does not want to > prevent their consumers (the service providers) from making money, > any more than Linus Torva

Re: Re: Policy on Binary Firmware Fetching in Main (e.g. foo2zjs)

2007-11-12 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:20:53PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > does getweb function correctly if the external files are unable to > be downloaded? if the answer is no, then the script must be > considered to depend on those files. and since those external files > contain non-free data, then the

Re: Java, GPL and CDDL

2007-11-14 Thread John Halton
On 13/11/2007, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yves Combe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am wondering if Java GPLed application can link with CDDL classes? > > Case looks like the cdrecord question i saw in the archive. > > To understand whether there's a license conflict, there needs

Re: Policy on Binary Firmware Fetching in Main (e.g. foo2zjs)

2007-11-15 Thread John Halton
On 15/11/2007, Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i don't see a difference. if any part of the package requires access > to non-free data to function correctly, then the entire package should > be considered to depend on non-free. > > this is different from the compiz situation where the

Re: Java, GPL and CDDL

2007-11-15 Thread John Halton
On 15/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You first need to be very carefull to find out the license for this > software. It does not mention the GPL version number, which makes > it hard to find the authors will. > > Given the fact that a lot of the files have not been touched si

Re: Java, GPL and CDDL

2007-11-15 Thread John Halton
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:09:04PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > I think that being a lawyer you will agree that " or > later" is *at most* a permission given by the original licensor to > direct licensees (i.e. parties entering version two contract) to > SUBLICENSE (licensees can become subli

Re: Java, GPL and CDDL

2007-11-16 Thread John Halton
On 16/11/2007, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, sort of vexed. But have you ever noticed "GPL is a license not a > contract" folks citing ANY authority to back that legal nonsense > claim? Consider: > > [lots and lots of case citations] It may or may not be correct, but I don'

Re: The legality of wodim

2007-11-18 Thread John Halton
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 01:45:24PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071117 23:55]: > > In addition, according to other posters in this thread the term > > "Urheberrecht" is better translated as "author's rights". > > I think the only usefull general translation is

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-18 Thread John Halton
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:24:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote: > The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate his own > copyright. Therefore, he does not if he adds code not distributable > under the GPL. Unless the license of the non-GPL code prohibits this > combination, everything is ok fo

Re: The legality of wodim

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On 19/11/2007, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is only a small part of Urheberrecht from what I can tell. What you mean > is what the law calls "Urheberpersöhnlichkeitsrecht", which is only three > short passages in the "Inhalt des Urheberrechts" part of the law, > directly follo

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:18:10PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Hi all, > the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 has been published today by > the FSF. > The plain text form can be downloaded from: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt Thanks for the heads-up. Do you (or anyone else) happen to

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > The term "user" is not clearly defined. If I get an "access denied" > error page through a browser, am I a user of the web application? When > I visit a portal, am I a user of the browser? Of the portal > application, as well? Of

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:56:23PM +, John Halton wrote: > > Anyway, it's a cost (a significant one, in some cases) associated with > > running the modified version of the Program. > > No, it's a cost associated with *modifying* the program, as is the > cost of

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 07:26:53PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > And, of course, web applications are often a large set of scripts... > dozens upon dozens of individual scripts. If I write a single new > script that adds some level of functionality, but in no way changes > anything else to the

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker > layer and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never > *directly* interacts with public users "remotely through a computer > network"? > > Your inte

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker layer > and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never > *directly* interacts with public users "remotely through a computer > network"? Apologies for "tripl

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Iain Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing we did not change is the phrase "interacting with [the > > software] remotely through a computer network." Many commenters > > expressed concern that this would include not only traditional GUIs > > that users manipulate for web-bas

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a > user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with two > things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons and > links... and the apache server by means of HTTP requests. It's the > server which then goes and

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are also examples where a company did not do anything until they > were served with legal papers. If you are only going to resort to > community pressure, then you might as well just make it a non-binding > request rather than a legal

Re: Is this translation in the Public Domain?

2007-11-21 Thread John Halton
On 21/11/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mohammad Derakhshani wrote: > > This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan. > > > > > > Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in > > the Public Domain.

Re: cl-rfc2109: requesting comments

2007-11-25 Thread John Halton
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 07:33:03PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote: > However as already written, upstream solution, as mine, suffers the > RFC parts in the function descriptions. Back in October 2006, Pierre > Thierry asked if these parts could be allowed even if not-free [4], > but no one answered him.

Re: [cl-debian] cl-rfc2109: requesting comments

2007-11-27 Thread John Halton
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:58:14PM +0100, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > Now that I think of it, quoting a copyrighted material doesn't give you > free material: you're not allowed to modify this quoted part, or you > would denature the original work, which is in utter violation of the > copyright, AFAIK.

Re: Bug#451799: new evince cannot display Japanese characters correctly

2007-11-28 Thread John Halton
> However I don't think there is anything copyrightable in these files; > they only contain series of numbers that describe the mappings. I don't see any reason in principle why "series of numbers that describe the mappings" couldn't be protected by copyright. Could you provide more details of why

Re: Bug#451799: new evince cannot display Japanese characters correctly

2007-11-28 Thread John Halton
On 28/11/2007, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Based on a quick look, these files establish a correspondence between > different character set encodings. Copyright protects creative > expression. What is the creative part of this mapping? I can see two > possible bases: character sele

Re: Bug#451799: new evince cannot display Japanese characters correctly

2007-11-28 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:33:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > FWIW, I believe a search of debian-legal archives will show that we've come > to the same conclusion before about copyrightability of non-creative > databases, and are already shipping a number of these in Debian. Thanks, that's use

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-11-30 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:11:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Gunnar Wolf: > > > 2- This is the main reason I contact -legal: The short license > >regarding the Adobe PostScript AFM files does mention 'for any > >purpose and without charge'. How would you interpret this? > > Compare

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-11-30 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:57:21AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > - Adobe PostScript AFM Files: may be used, copied, and distributed for > any purpose and without charge, with or without modification, > provided that all copyright notices are retained; that the AFM files > are not distributed wi

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-12-01 Thread John Halton
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 01:00:08AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Wait: the content and output of these programs is here licensed > under the terms of CC-by-nc-sa-v2.0 (which is utterly non-free). > What does this mean? Does "the content" mean the programs > themselves? Or something else (in that c

Re: Bug#451799: new evince cannot display Japanese characters correctly

2007-12-03 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:23:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > If problem is only modification right, why not uploading to non-free? That is certainly one option, but that may be over-cautious based on the previous discussion on this thread. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

2007-12-04 Thread John Halton
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:04:59PM +0100, Heikki Henriksen wrote: > However, I would really like some more (critical) eyes to take a > look at the Trademark Guidelines before uploading, and someone to > confirm or disapprove of my conclusion. > > Trademark Guidelines [Lots of interesting but irr

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

2007-12-05 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:18:54PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > Note that, in many jurisdictions, this is actually a legal > requirement. For example, this clause would be meaningless in the UK > because the vendor would be liable under SOGA (Sale Of Goods Act) > anyway. ...unless it was a

Re: AMQP license

2007-12-06 Thread John Halton
On 06/12/2007, John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to ask if the following license meets the DFSG. Clause ii > of the license says that the license is terminated if you sue any > author. I don't think that in itself makes the licence non-free (the CDDL includes a similar provisio

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-12-06 Thread John Halton
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen wrote: > So an interactive AGPL program *must* have a prominent way of giving > information to the user. This breaks for any server where the return > format is restricted (web servers should not insert content on > delivered

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

2007-12-06 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:40:43PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: > > "John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> >>> 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which >>> the

Re: AMQP license

2007-12-06 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:36:53AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > I think that the original question was more about the DFSG-freeness > of the AMQP specification itself, rather than about the possibility > of developing DFSG-free programs which follow the specification... I'm not sure how one woul

Re: AMQP license

2007-12-06 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:04:43AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > For instance: from a quick glance, I couldn't find any permission to > distribute modified versions of the specification (even under a > different name). If there's no such permission, then the > specification fails DFSG#3/DFSG#4 ...

Re: AMQP license

2007-12-07 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:36:36PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > The license on the specification does not permit redistribution, so > > it's not even suitable for non-free. > > Mmmmh, it seems that copying is allowed copying != distribution John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: JOGL in Debian

2007-12-07 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:33:14PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Are you implying you have any evidence that the GNU GPL v2 is > *incompatible* with french law?!? I gather that one reason for some of the changes in GPL v2 (in particular the change from "distribute" to "propogate/convey") was to a

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread John Halton
On 10/12/2007, Alessandro De Zorzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PHAMM USE LOGO LICENSE > > This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Phamm > project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. > > Note: we would appreciate that you make the image a link to > http:

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:12:53PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Wait, wait! Debian's own policy is not satisfactory! At least, I > don't consider it to be satisfactory (or DFSG-free), and other > people seem to agree with me that it should be changed. I'm aware that the licensing position regard

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:34:45PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > The whole reason the licensing of the Debian logos is being changed > is because the previous licensing made them unsuitable for use > within the main archive. This is generally acknowledged as a bug, > but shipping the official Debi

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-19 Thread John Halton
On 19/12/2007, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The preamble is: > > In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like > with certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE > Technology within commercial environments and you are obliged t

Re: Artistic License 2.0

2007-12-19 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:47:26PM +0200, Allison Randal wrote: > The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not explicitly > reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it? The text of the licence is at: http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0 Looking at some o

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/12/2007, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This clause attempts to make the license legally binding even to people > who merely use or download the software (sections 2, 3, and 13 restate > the same concept). > This goes beyond what copyright laws (at least in some jurisdictions) >

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-21 Thread John Halton
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > Specifically for computer programs, some jurisdictions recognize the > right to load and execute a program as an exclusive right of the > copyright holder. The 1991 EU Copyright Directive for instance explicitly >

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-21 Thread John Halton
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, if a lawful acquirer is someone who has a right to use it, > why would the Directive need to spell out they have the right to use it? Well, quite. That's probably why the UK implementation hides it away in section 50C under the bl

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-21 Thread John Halton
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never seen cases or commentary on this point either. I suppose > it wouldn't be worth the lawsuit. Even if my interpretation were to > prevail, all it gets someone is the right to execute the software > on the one computer he downlo

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-22 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:50:12PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > I would say that, if I download software from a website, I am not > the one who's creating the new copy: the web server is doing so, to > satisfy my request, and the web server is operated by the copyright > holder of the software (o

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-22 Thread John Halton
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:02:55AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > If this is the case, may I claim that I am a lawful acquirer of the > copy that consists of network packets? At that point, I may claim > that the law allows me to create a copy onto my hard-drive because > it's "necessary for the us

Re: Would it be legal?

2007-12-23 Thread John Halton
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:51:52PM +0100, Joakim Olsson wrote: > Hey! Would it be legal if I made a distro based on Debian which uses > the same repositories and then release it to the public? Can't see any reason why not. That's part of the point of free software. The main reasons not to do so w

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread John Halton
parate from copyright - e.g. "moral rights" giving an author to be identified as such. Plus, a general legal requirement to preserve copyright notices would also require a general legal definition of "copyright notice", which would not necessarily be a simple matter. If I put th

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread John Halton
On Jan 2, 2008 3:05 PM, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Art. 6bis of Berne provides the right of the author to claim > authorship of the work. It seems reasonable to consider a copyright > notice as a claim of authorship (in the normal case, where > author == copyright holder). This

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread John Halton
On Jan 2, 2008 4:04 PM, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the WTFPL is exactly what you are looking for. It meets all your > requirements, is DFSG-free, and several Debian packages are already > using it. Heh. I'd not come across that one. (Text is at http://www.answers.com/top

Re: About a couple of licenses in Japanese

2008-01-07 Thread John Halton
On Jan 7, 2008 12:44 PM, Ian Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A literal translation would be "Since this work is copyright free I do not > mind if you use it freely, commercially or non-commercially. However, If you > include it in a commercial work, please contact me before hand.". > > Interpret

Re: About a couple of licenses in Japanese

2008-01-07 Thread John Halton
On Jan 7, 2008 1:43 PM, Satoru KURASHIKI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would be, > " --, However, If you include them in the commercial collection of > materials, please contact me beforehand." > It regards them("commercial" collection of materials) as an exception. > > NG: "commercial" collectio

Re: Serious doubts about the distributability of a file

2008-01-07 Thread John Halton
On Jan 7, 2008 1:38 PM, Vincent Fourmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me that > the copyright notices conflict, and effectively render the file not > distributable, but I am not quite sure; if this file is effectively a > derived work from the work copyrighted by the Universtity of Nort

Re: GDAL HDF4 (HDF-EOS) driver license

2008-01-08 Thread John Halton
On Jan 8, 2008 11:05 AM, Ivan Shmakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that > ``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not? > > Permission to use, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation > for any purpose without

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications

2008-01-08 Thread John Halton
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this > issue and we have consensus that we would like to change the > licensing so that it is Debian-friendly (and, more broadly, > freedom-friendly). Thank you for

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications

2008-01-08 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:36:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > The proposed license talks about a "Specification", which becomes a bit > problematic, as soon as I modify the Specification to the point it is > not a "Specification" anymore. I could turn it into a poem, or into a > summary descri

Re: Translated man pages licenses

2008-01-09 Thread John Halton
On Jan 9, 2008 4:01 AM, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "commercial distribution may impose other > requirements (e.g., acknowledgement of copyright or inclusion of the > raw nroff sources with the commercial distribution)" Sounds to me like that may just be a reference to the requiremen

Re: Warranty disclaimers with SHOUTY CAPITALS (was: licensing of XMPP specifications)

2008-01-09 Thread John Halton
On Jan 9, 2008 12:20 AM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] because no lawyer on Earth knows [why] they aren't in mixed > case and everybody seems to think that everybody else knows and > that he's the only one that doesn't know and he was absent that > day in law school.

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications

2008-01-09 Thread John Halton
On Jan 9, 2008 3:32 PM, Tristan Seligmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The copyright when XSF license it is covering a specification and if a > > modified work is something else, that doesn't change the nature of > > what your copyright was, as far as I can tell. > > I think something went wrong

Re: license issuse in qterm

2008-01-10 Thread John Halton
On Jan 10, 2008 8:52 AM, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol > > description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other > > than "ssh" or "Secure Shell". > > This may be a problem. However, to me it seems thi

Re: Design Science License (in freevo)

2008-01-10 Thread John Halton
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:18:00PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > hi d-legal, > > I am taking care of the (forthcoming) freevo packages. > > Some artwork is covered by the attached Design Science License. > > Is it fine to include that stuff in the package and upload? > (I would say yes, but you may

Re: Openstreetmap data license

2008-01-14 Thread John Halton
On Jan 14, 2008 2:56 PM, Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Openstreetmap (OSM) project (http://openstreetmap.org/) currently > licenses all data under the CC-by-sa 2.0 license. IIRC, some/most of the CC > licenses had some problems wrt DFSG-freeness My understanding is that CC-by-sa 2.0

Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games

2008-01-18 Thread John Halton
On Jan 18, 2008 10:22 AM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway, from Red Hat, announced [1] that Fedora won't be > including any game of the kind of Frets on Fire, Stepmania, pydance, > digiband, or anything of the kind of DDR or Guitar Hero, due to patent > concerns [2]. >

Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games

2008-01-18 Thread John Halton
On Jan 18, 2008 12:20 PM, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a European patent EP1064974B1 and a Japanese application > JP2001009152. Thanks. > You can locate family members by going to > http://ep.espacenet.com/numberSearch?locale=en_EP > entering one member's number (US6347

Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]

2008-01-23 Thread John Halton
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file: --- The following copyright and permission notice appli

Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]

2008-01-23 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision > > >also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether > > >created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat > > > this software freedom. > > > AIUI th

Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]

2008-01-24 Thread John Halton
On Jan 24, 2008 12:23 AM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the > > licence, but it's not non-free. > > I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of "retain > copyright" is not all-inclusive. Well, as ever in t

Re: Licensing of package nauty

2008-01-24 Thread John Halton
On Jan 24, 2008 8:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Copyright (1984-2007) Brendan McKay. All rights > reserved. Permission is hereby given for use and/or > distribution with the exception of sale for profit or > application with nontrivial military significance.

Re: Licensing of package nauty

2008-01-24 Thread John Halton
On Jan 24, 2008 9:47 AM, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in non-free if > you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence. I assume you mean "if you *can't* get it licensed under a DFSG-compatible licence". On that basis,

Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs

2008-01-24 Thread John Halton
On Jan 24, 2008 7:41 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is actually a very intriguing question. If I have a shell account > on someone's computer, and I can copy a binary that resides somewhere > in /bin (or wherever), is the work being distributed to me? > > toad:~> ls -l /bin

Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs

2008-01-24 Thread John Halton
On Jan 24, 2008 11:41 AM, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu Jan 24 11:37, John Halton wrote: > > > It seems clear enough that the administrators of toad are > > "propagating" /bin/ls. And that "propagation" is one that "enables >

Re: Tshirt with the official logo

2008-01-24 Thread John Halton
On Jan 24, 2008 2:31 PM, Mauro Lizaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (How) Should i ask politely to the people running this site/shop to > remove the tshirt? > Any advices would be great. i dont really want to send them an email > with something like "hey remove that tshirt because i say so" ;) You

Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs

2008-01-24 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:33:34AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So Dear legal beagles, please close this loophole, if any. As outlined previously in the discussion, I don't think there *is* a "loophole" here. Anyone using GPL v.3 software (which includes almost all GNU software issued since G

Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs

2008-01-24 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:19AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Here's a 2003 debian-legal discussion about the ASP loophole: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00755.html> Thanks. The distinction here is that in the classic "ASP loophole" situation you are accessing the softwa

Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs

2008-01-25 Thread John Halton
On Jan 24, 2008 10:48 PM, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (off-list): > 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 distribut

  1   2   >