Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow the DFSG. I am following the DFSG and I feel it is best to point out when something is close to the edge, or is something accepted but many dislike. I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere. Then why continue the discussion of it here? I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license. Exactly. They are referenced in section 2, but not identified. If there are no such rights, why are they mentioned? I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it. Neither of these are freeness issues. Section 2 does not say that all rights of the USG are in this licence. I don't know whether it's a freeness issue or not, as it's incomplete. -- 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: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian. Huh? Please go learn who are the official arbiters of BCFG licence acceptance (it isn't me) before screaming 'abuse of power! abuse of power!' If you, as a private netizen, have problems with the 4 clause BSD license, that's fine. Just please represent your opinions as your opinions. Which I did. I post from a personal non-debian address, with a footer that states very clearly this is only my opinion and links to a statement that makes it quite clear I am NOT a representative of Debian in this situation. The page with that statement also links through to fuller descriptions. Please try to read posts before making silly accusations about them. This does nothing to build faith in the odd intepretation of my native language in the 'agree' subthread, as it suggests an inability to read. Regards, -- 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: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm wrote: What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement, which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what the catch is. It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they can point at that license and say See! We warned them! It's not our fault Thay would be able to cover their asses just fine by simply informing the licensee that those laws exist. Lots of fine licenses do that. However, this clause does not simply inform about a fact. It requires the _licensee_ to do something, namely to agree. Some people in this threa claim that the action being required is not that of holding the same opinion as that of the export law, but one of acknowledging it. I don't even _know_ how to perform that action to the satisfaction of the court. If I am to communicate acknowledgement to the licensor, the software becomes postcardware and therefore non-free. What I am saying is that if the author sues me with a claim that my copying was unautorized becaus I have not performed the act of agreeing that bla bla bla that was a condition of getting the license, how would I go about convincing the court that he is wrong and I did in fact do what the licensor wanted me to. (Assume here that I _know_ what it is that the licensor wanted me to, which I don't). At least I know what opinions I have. If Licensee agrees does not mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I have acknowledged the law in a proper manner that allows me to use the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist. It is true that there are bugs in Debian. That does not mean that a free license can require me to tell the licensor that. -- Henning MakholmUnmetered water, dear. Run it deep. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm wrote: What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement, which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what the catch is. It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they can point at that license and say See! We warned them! It's not our fault Thay would be able to cover their asses just fine by simply informing the licensee that those laws exist. Lots of fine licenses do that. However, this clause does not simply inform about a fact. It requires the _licensee_ to do something, namely to agree. Some people in this threa claim that the action being required is not that of holding the same opinion as that of the export law, but one of acknowledging it. I don't even _know_ how to perform that action to the satisfaction of the court. If I am to communicate acknowledgement to the licensor, the software becomes postcardware and therefore non-free. By using the rights given to you by the license. Your use of the rights is contingent on acceptance of the terms of the license, thus by exercising those rights, your are demonstrating your acknowledgment. Think of the GPL. By distributing software under the GPL, you are acknowledging the terms of the GPL (SCO excluded) and you are then bound by them. This license just explicitly requires you to acknowledge a fact of US law, which you do by the act of distribution/modification. What I am saying is that if the author sues me with a claim that my copying was unautorized becaus I have not performed the act of agreeing that bla bla bla that was a condition of getting the license, how would I go about convincing the court that he is wrong and I did in fact do what the licensor wanted me to. (Assume here that I _know_ what it is that the licensor wanted me to, which I don't). At least I know what opinions I have. If Licensee agrees does not mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I have acknowledged the law in a proper manner that allows me to use the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist. It is true that there are bugs in Debian. That does not mean that a free license can require me to tell the licensor that. This was an example of the difference between the two types of 'agree', not saying a license should say that. Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
On Sunday 30 July 2006 02:07, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion. The authors of the license are not asking you to agree with the idea of export licensing. They are asking you to agree to the following statement: As things currently stand in the us, there are some things subject to export licensing. If you export $thing, you can either first get a license, or you may get in trouble with the government. The 'require' comes from the US governement, not the authors of the license. I think we can both agree that the author's assessment matches current reality, so it doesn't seem worth debating that. Finally, failure to get the license may (only may, not will, must, or even 'really should') get you in trouble under US laws, and in no way affects your status as licensee. Does that clear things up? Yes, thanks for the nice explanation. I remember we have discussed that in the past [1], but we ended up to [2]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00075.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00105.html Now, let's see if I understand and interpret that correctly: Licensee even might be kept liable under the above law despite his not accepting the same law (some jurisdiction respect others jurisdiction laws, by means of various bilateral agreements, and other complicated and boring documents, we are hardly aware of). So, the clause 7. of the BCFG license is only meant to warn the licensees to obey the laws (I believe that they could be kept liable even without that clause being added to the BCFG), and covers licensor's ass (as said in another mail). If so, there is nothing we can do, no matter what law we accept/agree with or we do not. Hm, then I tend to agree that it is hardly non-free. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while the advertising clause was not removed until 1999. However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons. I understand that many people are unhappy with the advertising clause. I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so clearly laid out in the DFSG. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while the advertising clause was not removed until 1999. However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons. I understand that many people are unhappy with the advertising clause. I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so clearly laid out in the DFSG. Debian-legal often gives advice beyond what is required. For example, the DFSG says nothing about license proliferation. Would you have debian-legal refrain from telling people to use standard licenses? It is not like the original response (Accepted but unpopular) was incorrect. It is accepted, but it is also unpopular. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, John Goerzen said: Hi, The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said: I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so clearly laid out in the DFSG. Debian-legal often gives advice beyond what is required. For example, the DFSG says nothing about license proliferation. Would you have debian-legal refrain from telling people to use standard licenses? It is not like the original response (Accepted but unpopular) was incorrect. It is accepted, but it is also unpopular. Since the original question was (quoted above) about what the current policy is, it is disingenuous at best to pretend that it is anything but whole heartedly supported. If you have personal issues with the license, feel free to express them as an individual, just don't try to misrepresent those opinions as the opinions of Debian. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep -i landry /var/lib/apt/lists/* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Maybe the problem here is that you haven't agreed to follow the DFSG? The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian. If you, as a private netizen, have problems with the 4 clause BSD license, that's fine. Just please represent your opinions as your opinions. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran writes: Maybe the problem here is that you haven't agreed to follow the DFSG? Could you please point out where the SC or DFSG forbid any kind of (statement of) disagreement with their policies? Such a clause is certainly not in keeping with the rest of the DFSG or with the general cause of free software. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. Plus, it's got some other wording -- is it OK? I'm not sure. Do any of you have any tips on what I might say to the author regarding dropping the advertising clause? I'd look on www.fsf.org for their arguments against the BSD+ad. [...] 4. All advertising materials, journal articles and documentation mentioning features derived from or use of the Software must display the following acknowledgment: This is more than just the documentation and advertising of the Software. It includes journal articles which mearly mention use of it - is that contaminating unrelated software? I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. 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: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license statement. Freedom of software should also apply to people who don't agree with US export laws. I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] What the statement reduces to is: licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions, and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may be consequences Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a restriction. Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something if that is not what it means? It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree. `dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there may be issues around export controls in one country. Agreeing to a 'may' clause is in any event a non-issue. It's not like the license says you must follow the rules around those export controls. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow the DFSG. I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere. I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license. I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it. Neither of these are freeness issues. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However, the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so he is barred from using the software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Ken Arromdee said: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However, the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so he is barred from using the software. I don't think you've read what you're replying to. If your hypothetical person is working to overturn a law, then there is an a priori acknowledgement that the law exists, correct? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Ken Arromdee writes: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, merely its existence. Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However, the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so he is barred from using the software. The license demands that a licensor agree that the US government might criminally prosecute him for prohibited exports from the United States (the license says OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA). Good luck arguing against that broad statement; there are plenty of cases where goods -- such as military surplus missile launchers -- are export controlled with no viable constitutional question and some, probably smaller, number of cases where technical data are validly export controlled. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
On 29 Jul 2006, Michael Poole wrote: The license demands that a licensor agree that the US government might criminally prosecute him for prohibited exports from the United States (the license says OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA). Good luck arguing against that broad statement; there are plenty of cases where goods -- such as military surplus missile launchers -- are export controlled with no viable constitutional question and some, probably smaller, number of cases where technical data are validly export controlled. So you're saying that the clause would be satisfied if the user agrees that goods other than the program are subject to export law, even if he believes the program itself isn't? I suppose that's a valid way to read it, but it does seem strange. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I completely disagree with it Please quote the section of the license that states that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I completely disagree with it Please quote the section of the license that states that. # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. -- Henning Makholm Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte. Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something if that is not what it means? It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their use of the word agree. `dict agree` might be helpful here - there are quite a lot of possible meanings. The license is merely asking you to acknowledge that there may be issues around export controls in one country. You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I completely disagree with it, and that agreeing in the license's strange use means nothing at all. Why do you think that the license wants me to do something that according to you does not entail doing anything after all? That does not make sense; the licensor would not have written the clause unless he intended it to restrict what I can do. Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
George Danchev wrote: On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. Agree can have two (actually more) meanings. In the context of this license, you don't have to agree that the law is right or just (agree with it), merely that it exists, as a statement of fact (Agree that the the facts stated are true). The facts that are stated are that the law declares x, y, and z. signature.asc Description: PGP signature signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said: On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote: --cut-- Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is stronger than a 'may' statement? I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in trying to explain it. Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before. Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion. The authors of the license are not asking you to agree with the idea of export licensing. They are asking you to agree to the following statement: As things currently stand in the us, there are some things subject to export licensing. If you export $thing, you can either first get a license, or you may get in trouble with the government. The 'require' comes from the US governement, not the authors of the license. I think we can both agree that the author's assessment matches current reality, so it doesn't seem worth debating that. Finally, failure to get the license may (only may, not will, must, or even 'really should') get you in trouble under US laws, and in no way affects your status as licensee. Does that clear things up? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please quote the section of the license that states that. # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. In this sense, AGREES is synonymous with ACKNOWLEDGES. If you read it like that, are you happier? What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement, which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what the catch is. At least I know what opinions I have. If Licensee agrees does not mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I have acknowledged the law in a proper manner that allows me to use the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. -- Henning MakholmDetta, sade de, vore rena sanningen; ty de kunde tala sanning lika väl som någon annan, när de bara visste vad det tjänade til. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Accepted but unpopular. This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while the advertising clause was not removed until 1999. However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please quote the section of the license that states that. # LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM # THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM # THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL # LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. In this sense, AGREES is synonymous with ACKNOWLEDGES. If you read it like that, are you happier? What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement, which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what the catch is. It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they can point at that license and say See! We warned them! It's not our fault They don't want to get sued by someone claiming that it's their responsibility for not informing that person of the legal risk. At least I know what opinions I have. If Licensee agrees does not mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I have acknowledged the law in a proper manner that allows me to use the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist. HTH, Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. We accept them, but grudgingly. 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. -- Henning Makholm We're trying to get it into the parts per billion range, but no luck still. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. LICENSEE AGREES THAT LICENSE VIOLATION MAY RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION would hardly be controversial. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? -- Henning MakholmThere is a danger that curious users may occasionally unplug their fiber connector and look directly into it to watch the bits go by at 100 Mbps. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
On 7/28/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? I'm not sure if the license can be changed, but would it be acceptable to merely *state* the fact, rather than requiring the user to agree to it? Something like: THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT; FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. In order for a person to use software, they must agree to the licensing terms. In this case, they don't have to agree that US export laws may impose a burden upon them, they just are agreeing that the licensor has warned them about the export laws. -- Robinson Tryon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license statement. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCFG Public License
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS. Does this mean that the license is only avaliable to those who agree with the law? That would not be free. No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be true. And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? 'Agreeable' is not precisely a derivative of 'agree'. I agree that if I drink alot of beer, I may very well be hung over the next morning. it does not mean I am in the least agreeable about the situation. What the statement reduces to is: licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions, and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may be consequences Well, no shit. That's a simple statement of fact, and not a restriction. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BCFG Public License
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software? If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license statement. Freedom of software should also apply to people who don't agree with US export laws. -- Henning Makholm I can get fat! I can sing! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
